government of nepal ministry of federal affairs and...
TRANSCRIPT
i
Assessment of the effectiveness and impact of the Poverty-
Environment-Climate indicators in Performance Evaluation
procedure in LBs of Nepal
(Final Report)
Report
Submitted to
Government of Nepal
Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
Singha durbar, Kathmandu
November, 2016
ii
Table of Contents
Contents Page
Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................................... ii
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................................... iv
Executive summary ....................................................................................................................................... v
1. Background ............................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Rationale of the study ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.3. Objective of the study ........................................................................................................................ 2
1.4 Limitation of the study ........................................................................................................................ 3
2.Methodology .............................................................................................................................................. 4
2.1 Review of literatures/documents ......................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Discussion with concern Officials ...................................................................................................... 5
2.3 Key Informant's Interview .................................................................................................................. 5
3. Initiatives undertaken for Poverty Environmental Initiative ..................................................................... 6
3.1 Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) and regulation (LSGR) ............................................................. 6
3.2. Environment Protection Act, 1997and Rules 1998 ............................................................................ 7
2.3 The LBs Block Grant Guideline ......................................................................................................... 8
3.4 The Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme ....................................................................... 9
3.5 National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA) ................................................................................... 11
3.6 Three Year Plan (2013/14 -2015/16) ................................................................................................ 12
3.7 Environmentally Friendly Local Governance ................................................................................... 13
3.8 The MCPM guideline ....................................................................................................................... 14
3.8.1 Provisions of the environmental issues in DDC MCPM............................................................ 14
3.8.2 Provisions of the environmental issues in Municipality ............................................................ 17
3.8.3 Provisions of the environmental issues in VDC MCPM........................................................... 21
3.8.4 Grant distribution based on MCPM result ................................................................................. 22
3.8.5 Process of grant distribution in VDCs ..................................................................................... 23
3.8.6 New and old MCPM guideline with respect to environmental poverty indicators .................... 23
4 Implementation status of environmental poverty indicators of DDC ...................................................... 23
4.1 Trend of Marks obtained by DDCs in environmental poverty indicators ......................................... 23
4.2 Situation of Marks obtained and environmental poverty indicator of DDC ..................................... 24
4.3 Situation of Marks obtained in other indicators and environmental poverty indicator ..................... 24
4.4 Total Marks allocated and obtained in environmental poverty indicator vs total obtained FY ........ 25
iii
4.5 Trend of Marks obtained by MPs in environmental poverty indicators ........................................... 26
4.6 Total Marks obtained by Municipalities environmental poverty indicator ....................................... 26
4.7 Total Marks obtained by Municipalities environmental poverty Vs. other indicator ....................... 27
4.8 Indicator-wise marks allocated and obtained in environmental poverty by municipality ................ 27
4.9 Implementation status of environmental poverty indicators of VDCs ............................................. 28
5 Impact of the environmental poverty related indicators in MCPM ......................................................... 28
5.1 Marks allocated and obtained by indicators related to environmental poverty in DDC ................... 29
5.2 Marks allocated and obtained by indicators related to environmental poverty in MP ...................... 29
5.3 Marks allocated, pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty related indicators to get
pass marks in DDCs ................................................................................................................................ 30
5.4 Marks allocated, pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty related indicators to get
pass marks in MP .................................................................................................................................... 30
5.5 Performance based grant disbursement ............................................................................................. 31
6. Conclusion and recommendations .......................................................................................................... 32
6.1 Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 32
6.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................. 33
References ................................................................................................................................................... 35
Annex: 1 Details of environmental poverty indicators ............................................................................... 36
iv
Acronyms CAC Citizen Awareness Center
CBO Community Based Organization
CFLG Child Friendly Local Governance
DDC District Development Committee
DPMAS District Poverty Monitoring and Analysis System
DRR Disaster Risk Reduction
DTMP District Transport Management Plan
EFLG Environmentally Friendly Local Governance
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EPA Environment Protection Act
EPR Environment Protection Regulation
ENV Environment
FY Fiscal Year
GESI Gender and Social Inclusion
GLOF Glacier Lake Outburst Flood
GoN Government of Nepal
GRB Gender Responsive Budgeting
IEE Initial Environmental Examination
IPC Integrated Planning Committee
LGCDP Local Government Community Development Programme
LSGA Local Self Governance Act
LSGR Local Self Governance Regulation
KII Key Informants Interview
LAPA Local Adaptation Plan for Action
LBs Local Bodies
LBFC Local Bodies Fiscal Commission
MCs Minimum Conditions
MCPM Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures
MP Municipality
MoFALD Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
MoAD Ministry of Agriculture Development
MoSTE Ministry of Science Technology and Environment
MoFSC Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation
NGO Non Governmental Organization
NPC National Planning Commission
ODF Open Defecation Free
PMs Performance Measures
PEI Poverty Environment Initiative
SNPMC-NPC Strengthening National Planning and Monitoring Capacity of NPC
TYP Three Year Interim Plans
UNDP United Nations Development Program
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
VDC Village Development Committee
WASH Water Sanitation and Hygiene
WCF Ward Citizen Forum
v
Executive summary
Minimum Condition and Performance Measures (MCPM) system has been operating as an
integral part of the overall local governance reform process in Nepal. This system was initiated
from FY2004/05 on pilot basis in District Development Committees (DDCs). Latter on this
system was rolled out to all Local Bodies ( LBs ). The key objective of this system is to make
LBs more transparent, accountable and effective in providing public services at the local level.
Under this system, LBs are evaluated on the basis of two set of indicators the Minimum
Conditions (MCs) and Performance Measures (PMs). Local Bodies Fiscal Commission annually
carries out the assessment of LBs and submits recommendation to the government for the
adjustment of additional capital grant. The additional capital grant is fully aligned on this system.
The objective of this study is to review effectiveness and impact of the poverty-environment-
climate factors of the MCPM in terms of allocation of grants, local budget and local service
delivery for pro-poor environment and climate change needs of poor women and men, and
suggest related options for improving the current MCPM system. The study is done largely based
on secondary information that limits the opinion of the LBs levels informants. Review of
MCPM analysis reports of LBFC, MCPM manuals and discussion with concern officials in
MoFALD, LBFC, NPC including Key Informant's Interview (KII) were the methodology used to
conduct the study.
There are nine (9) MCs indicators in DDC, 10 in Municipality and seven (7) in VDCs while
there are 46 PMs indicators with five category under performance measures include; i) Planning
and budget management; ii) Resource mobilization and financial management; iii) Budget
disbursement, expenditure and activity implementation; iv) Monitoring, evaluation,
communication and transparency; v) Organization management and job description for DDC and
municipality comprises the 40 PMs indicators in five sectroal areas i) Local governance; ii)
Financial resource mobilization and management; iii) Planning and project management; iv)
Organization and human resource development; and v) Town basic service management.
Environmental poverty related indicators in DDC, Municipality and VDC comprise 10, 12 and
three (3) respectively. Out of 100 full marks of PM indicators, DDC carry 20, Municipality
carry 30 and VDC carry 20 marks. DDC and Municipality PM indicators have five categories
and to be eligible for getting almost all formula basis additional capital grant the LBs should get
minimum pass marks in every categories.
Inclusive development by integrating pro-poor concerns on sustainable management of natural
resources, environment and climate have been the key elements for the development planning
and economic decision making process of the LBs. The Local Bodies Resource Mobilization and
Management Procedures, guideline 2069 also reinforces the compliance of the GoN policy like
IEE, EIA in local level governance including pro-poor and environment friendly development.
LBFC has introduced poverty, climate change and environmental indicators in the MCPM
Manuals. The aim was to enhance local service delivery in pro-poor environmental management
and climate change by providing incentives through the MCPM system.
vi
Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) and regulation (LSGR), duly acknowledge the
environmental poverty issues/ environment and climate change dimension of poverty and put
them in priority. The Environment Protection Act, 1997(EPA), the Environment Protection
Rules, 1998(EPR) has identified and make inventory explaining what type of the projects needs
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Initial Environmental Examination (IEE)
provisioning (Rule 3, schedule 1) and EIA(Rule 3, schedule 2) and make mandatory processes of
IEE and EIA. The LBs Resource Mobilization Guideline, The Poverty Environment Initiative
(PEI) programme, National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA), Environmentally Friendly Local
Governance (EFLG), MCPM guideline, Child Friendly Local Governance (CFLG) guideline,
Gender and Social Inclusion (GESI) policy and guideline, DOLIDAR act/ or regulations, mining
regulations, Agriculture and Forest acts has been the major initiatives that GoN has undertaken
to address and integrate the environment and poverty issues in the development endeavor.
The average score obtained by DDCs from FY 2012/13 to 2014/15 is found in decreasing trend
in most of the PMs indicators. Very consistent result is found in indicator expenditure of
targeted group development program) which is 2.5, 2.4 and 2.3 respectively out of full marks 3
in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. Budget for Agriculture and Livestock Development
Program is significantly down fall as the average point obtained are 1.5, 0.9 and 0.9 out of 2 full
marks in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively.
The percent marks obtained by DDCs for all 46 indicators in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15
is 64.5 percent, 58.0 percent and 55.5 percent while the marks obtained in environmental poverty
indicators are 71.1, 58.3 and 60.3 percent. It is found that, the marks obtained trend is not
consistent and fluctuate. Indicator 8 has better performance followed by indicator 6, indicator 21
and least is in indicator 34 impact evaluation of the Projects.
Trend of obtaining points in environmental poverty related indicators by Municipalities are
slightly increasing in last three fiscal years. Budget allocation trend for the development of
targeted group is 1.3, 1.7 and 1.8 respectively in fiscal year 2012/13, 2013/14 and2014/15.
Sanitation and waste management related indicators received average points 2.2, 1.8 and 2 out of
4 full marks in fiscal year 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively. While on the other hand,
environmental management indicator obtained 2.6, 0.8 and 1.1 marks out of 4 full marks in fiscal
year 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively. Thus the indicators related to environmental
poverty has higher while the mark obtained is bit less trend by the municipalities.
Municipalities obtained 68.1 percent, 66.1 percent and 67.3 percent marks in FY 2012/13,
2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively while on the other hand the marks obtained in environmental
poverty indicators is 67.9 percent, 59.4 percent and 62.5 percent respectively. Thus the total
marks obtained in environmental poverty indicators is lesser compared to total. It indicates that,
the Municipalities are to be working more seriously.
Out of total marks allocated PM indicators of DDC in environmental poverty related indicators,
masks obtained is 71.1 percent, 58.3 percent and 60.3 percent respectively in FY 2012/13,
2013/14 and 2014/15 against other indicators obtained 62.9 percent, 57.9 percent and 54.7
percent in corresponding FY indicating slightly higher marks in environmental poverty related
indicators. While, out of total allocated marks in PM indicators of Municipality, environmental
vii
poverty related indicators obtained 67.9 percent, 59.4 percent and 62.5 percent respectively
against other indicators that obtained 68.2 percent 68.9 percent and 69.3 percent respectively in
FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15.
The performance of the environmental poverty related indicators have been seen in decreasing
trend and the marks obtained is less than the allocation showing no contribution in getting
performance based grant in DDCs. Out of 20 percent marks allocated for environmental poverty
related indicators, marks obtained is 12.2 percent, 11.7 percent and 12.1 percent respectively in
FY 2012/13, 2013/14, 2014/15. Similarly out of total 30 percent allocation in environmental
poverty related indicators in Municipality, marks obtained are 19.4 percent, 16.9 percent and
12.1 percent respectively in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. It clearly shows that no
significant contribution of environmental poverty related indicators in performance
measurements of LBs. Further it is also found that the ratio of MCPM based grant to total grant
is the lowest. Undoubtedly the overall impacts of environmental poverty indicators to the block
grant distribution is negligible and insignificant.
Recommendations
Environment and poverty are interlinked with each other and imbalance in either part could
bring negative effect in the overall livelihood of the people. Under these circumstances, high
priority should be given for environment, ecology, climate change, mitigation, adaptation, and
adoption and mitigation measures while implementing any development projects. Following
recommendations have been made in this regards:
1. There is no specific environment and poverty related indicator in MCs while the LBs are
more concern on meeting the MCs whatever the case in PMs shall be. In this situation,
one indicator related to environment and poverty should be placed in MCs for LBs.
2. Despite guideline provided significant weightage for the environmental poverty
indicators, implementation performance is below the average standard. This might be due
to lack of appropriate manpower, technology, skill and knowledge in these issues. Hence
it is recommended to undertake a survey on why the performance is below the average
and take necessary action to improve the performance.
3. Although, it is mandatory for all the LBs for reporting in DPMAS framework, data
production is not been observed compliance to it. Hence, it is recommended to make
mandatory to report in DPMAS Framework like that of MCPM to all the LBs, so that
they will perform better.
4. The Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme, Local Adaptation Plan for Action-
LAPA (Framework) and Environmental Friendly Local Governance (EFLG) are good
initiatives to realize the LBs on the gravity of environmental poverty issues and make
them actualize. LBFC shall coordinate with these entities and streamline the indicators
accordingly.
1
1. Background
1.1 Introduction
Government of Nepal (GoN) has been implementing the Minimum Conditions and Performance
Measures (MCPM) system for block grant allocation to Local Bodies (LBs) since FY 2004/5 in
DDCs and since FY 2007/8 in VDCs and municipalities as an integral part of local
governance reform process. This system evaluates the annual performance of LBs based on
planning and budgeting, financial management, fiscal resource mobilization, communication and
transparency, budget releases and programme execution, monitoring and evaluation, etc. The
evaluation is done by the Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC )1, which further recommends
the government to increase or decrease additional grants.
The performance of local bodies is measured through two tools, called Minimum Conditions and
Performance Measures. Minimum Conditions take the basic functions of LBs into account,
which serve as threshold criteria, ie, if a local body fails to meet any of the conditions, it will not
be eligible for additional grants. Performance indicators cover additional functions that
determine how much more or less grants a local body will receive if it meets all minimum
conditions.
There are seven (7) Minimum Condition indicators for Village Development Committees
(VDCs), 10 for Municipalities, and nine for District Development Committees (DDCs). For
instance, the annual programme and budget of the current fiscal year are to be approved by the
VDC council, and the VDC must undertake annual progress review and complete the final
financial audit for all income and expenditure. Similarly, there are 13 Performance Measure
indicators for VDCs, 40 for Municipalities, and 46 for DDCs; a total score of 100 is provided
according to their importance and nature.
If a local body fails in any one of the indicators under Minimum Conditions, 100 percent
additional grant will be deducted. Further-more, 20 percent additional grant will be deducted if a
local body fails to receive 40 Marks out of 100 in PMs score.
As per the section 236 of LSGA the government provides minimum and additional grant to the
LBs2.The grant shall be displayed in the red book either from the government owned or from the
1As per the Local Self Governance Act, 1999 ( LSGA ) provision the LBFC is formed under the chairpersonship
Minister for MoFALD along with other nine members represented from concerned stake holders. Major objectives
of LBFC, “is to support for expedition on fiscal decentralization process in Nepal and mainly responsible for i)
institutionalize four pillars of fiscal decentralization ii)to study and research to recommend GoN within its given
scope of works iii) suggest related issues related expenditure management including the accounting and auditing
systems of LBs iv) design allocation criteria for performance based conditional/ un conditional grant including
formula for grant allocations iv) suggest tax and revenue sharing system and mechanisms from central level and
among LBs.The new constitution of Nepal has provisioned National Natural resources and Fiscal Commission(
NNRFC ) as constitutional body. It is likely that the LBFC will be no more in the future. However, it is hoped that
most of the LBFC functions will be shifted to the NNRFC.
2 This section reads: “The Government of Nepal shall have to provide the Local Body each year with minimum
grant prescribed and also with additional grants on such basis as population, level of development, possibility and
capability of mobilizing resources, necessity of financial resources, regular record keeping of incomes and
2
basket of development partners. The advantage of additional capital grant system is that block
grant is distributed transparently, based on expenditure need criteria such as population,
geographical area.
The MCPM system has encouraged stakeholders to improve local self governance and as a
result, people have become more aware and have started pressuring local bodies to deliver better
services and improve overall governance with more accountability, consciousness, and
efficiency.
1.2. Rationale of the study
Inclusive development by integrating pro-poor concerns on sustainable management of natural
resources, environment and climate have been the key elements for the development planning
and economic decision making process of the LBs elsewhere. The Local Bodies Resource
Mobilization and Management Procedures, 2069 also reinforces the compliance of the GoN
policy like IEE, EIA in local level governance including pro-poor and environment friendly
development. The infrastructure development projects, management of use of sand, stones, mud
etc. needs to undertake Sustainability of the MCPM and the effectiveness of capital grants that
receive by LBs are also largely depending upon their capacity to address the climate and
environmental issues through economic decision-making process. The functional areas of
MCPM as envisaged should have strong linkages with pro-poor concerns on climate and
environment issues for the sustainability of the MCPM.
With the UNDP-UNEP PEI support, the government has also introduced poverty, climate change
and environmental indicators in the Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures Manuals.
The aim was to enhance local service delivery in pro-poor environmental management and
climate change by providing incentives through the MCPM system.
1.3. Objective of the study
The overall objective of the study is to review effectiveness and impact of the poverty-
environment-climate factors of the MCPM in terms of allocation of grants, local budget and local
service delivery for pro-poor environment and climate change needs of poor women and men,
and suggest related options for improving the current MCPM system. The specific objectives are;
a) Analysis of the trends of the integration of pro-poor environment and climate change
indicators in the MCPM manuals.
expenditures, situation of auditing and financial discipline of the concerned Local Body.” As per this section the
government provides Rs 1.5 million, 3.0 million and 4.0 million minimum grant to VDCs, municipality and DDCs
respectively. The additional capital grant including LGCDP capital grant is provided based on the assessment of
MCPM system. At LGCDP-1 the LBs received a big chunk of additional grant. The additional grant is channelized
through a formula system. Formula for Village Development Committees comprises the weightage as: population
60%, area 10 % and weighted cost 30%. Similarly, for Municipality ; population 60%, weighted poverty 25%, area
10% and weighted tax effort 15% and for District Development Committees ; population 40%, weighted poverty
25%, area 10% and weighted cost 25%.
3
b) Assessment of impact of the pro-poor environment and climate change indicators that are
included in the MCPM manuals ;
o on the local budgets (budget formulation, execution, expenditure)
o on the local service delivery for meeting the environment and climate change needs
of poor women and men
o on the allocation of additional grants
c) Suggestion for improving the current MCPM system from the poverty-environment-climate
nexus perspective (including options for a simpler, more transparent and coherent system
between DDC, municipalities and VDCs) to Inform the inter-governmental fiscal transfer
system in Nepal under a federalist system, considering political feasibility of the proposed
options.
1.4 Limitation of the study
The limitation of study is as follows;
a) The study is done largely based on secondary information that limits the opinion of the
district and municipal level informants. However, concern official from Kathmandu DDC
was interviewed.
b) Relatively the nature of this study is complex which needs in depth and comprehensive
data from local level to central level. Getting reliable data at local level and linking with
central level is very difficult task.
c) This study does not cover all the aspects of MCPM system . It is just an indicative from
an environment perspective.
d) The study was done very limited time frame. Due to timing and resource constraints it
does not cover even the entire aspects of pro-poor environment and climate change
issues.
e) The LBFC has not published the MCPM analysis report of the FY 2014/15. This year's
analysis is done based on the raw data provided by the LBFC officials. However, the raw
data is subject to change based on the LBFC's official publication.
4
2.Methodology
The following methodology is followed to complete the study ;
2.1 Review of literatures/documents
Basically, this study is based on the secondary data and information collected from the various
government and non-government levels publications.
a) Review MCPM manual
In this stage, review and understanding of relevant policy, laws procedures and guidelines
were carried out. While carrying out the desk review, in-depth review and analysis of
MCPM Guidelines/manuals and in the perspective of pro-poor environment, climate
change and disaster risk reduction (DRR) were considered and analyzed. In reviewing the
MCPM guidelines/manuals, the focus was done as following;
1. VDC Level:
Target Group and Sector Development Budget Allocation and Expenditure and their
criterion,
Environment management and its measurement criterion and
Other indicators affecting those indicators
2. Municipality Level:
Planning and Programme Implementation (Target Group Development Programme,
budget allocation and expenditure, Child Development, Protection and Participation
etc.)
Basic service Delivery: Sanitation and waste management, Environmental
Management, Urban Transport management, Slaughter House and Meat Shop
regulation and management, Promotion of public health, Emergency services and
disaster management, Social security programme Implementation, Settlement
development, urban planning and building construction etc.
3. DDC Level:
Planning and Budgeting; District Transport Management Plan (DTMP) and its
implementation, target Group development Programme, Gender Responsive
Budgeting (GRB) etc.
Plan and Programme Implementation; Expenditure on Target Group Development
programme, Cross sectoral Responsibilities; plan and implementation- environment,
DRR, CFLG etc.
Cross-sectoral Services: Energy and Environment management, Drinking water and
sanitation sector management, social security programme etc.
Resource Mobilization and Financial Management: Allocation of Internal revenue
etc.
5
b) Review of the MCPM indicators
As specified in the ToR, in considerations with the indicators, sub-indicators and
measurement criterion, the annual analytical reports and unpublished raw data of the
Local Bodies Fiscal Commission are analyzed vis-a vis the pro-poor, environment,
climate change and DRR in sequence of updated MCPM manuals.
2.2 Discussion with concern Officials
Interaction was done with concern officials in Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local
Development (MoFALD), Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC), Ministry of Finance (MOF)
and National Planning Commission ( NPC ) to get views and perspectives on poverty-
environment issues.
2.3 Key Informant's Interview
Senior Social Development officer and senior engineer of the environment section of DDC
Kathmandu were interviewed to assess the information related to the provision of environmental
poverty related indicators in MCPM guideline and their impact in the grant system.
6
3. Initiatives undertaken for Poverty Environmental Initiative
3.1 Local Self Governance Act (LSGA) and regulation (LSGR)
The LSGA and LSGR duly acknowledge the environmental poverty issues/ environment and
climate change dimension of poverty and put them in priority. Following table 1 illustrate the
provisions made in LSGA and LSGR.
Table 1 Key provisions in LSGA and LSGR Related to Pro-poor development and
Environment Conservation
LBs LSGA 1999 LSGR 2000
DDC 189 Function, responsibility and power of DDC
sub-clause 7: Relating to Forest and Environment
sub-clause 16 (b) disaster control
Rule 193: Formation of District
council committee(b) Agriculture,
Forests and Environment
Committee
195: Formulation of DPP Sub-clause 4 subject To
include in plan (c) Development in area of backward
communities and poor population
(d) Income generating and skill development activities
Rule 198: Formulation of periodic
plan, Rule 206 Conduct impact
assessment of project (d)
Environmental Impact:
Clause 200: To conduct feasibility study of
development programme/projects
Clause 201: priority setting (d) programme conserving
environment
Clause 202: Basis for project selection: sub clause1(a)
to conserve environment while selecting project
VDCs (clause 28) Function, responsibility and power of
function, responsibility and power of VDC relating to
Forest and Environment Miscellaneous Functions
Relating to Development of Women and Disabled
People and Natural Disaster
Rule 47 Formation of sectoral
committees Village Council (b)
Agriculture, Forests and
Environment Committee
VDC Planning (clause 43)- 3 (f) Environment
Conservation Sub clause 5: Periodic Planning
(c) Development in area of backward communities
and poor population, (d) Income generating and skill
development activities for women and children
(f) Pollution control
clause 45: to conduct feasibility study of Project
clause 46 Basis for project selection
(2) to conserve environment while selecting project
Clause 234: (1) GoN to provide Instruction on the matter whether LBs follow laws and
functions, priority accorded to backward communities, welfare of women and children,
environment conservation
Source : Author's analysis based on LSGA, 1999 and LSGR 2000 .
7
3.2. Environment Protection Act, 1997and Rules 1998
The Environment Protection Act, 1997(EPA) emphasized conserving environment in order to
protect and preserve environment and ecology. This act duly acknowledged the minimization of
the negative effect of development initiatives on environment due to over encroachment of
environmental variables by human activities. It has focused on way of reducing degradation on
environment and conserves the wildlife, vegetation, nature and physical objects; and
management of wide range natural resources, taking into consideration of sustainable
development maintaining balance between development and environment. The EPA has made
explicit provision for the project proponents to carry out Initial Environmental Examination
(IEE) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) of the project proposals as prescribed while
implementing the development project of varied discipline.
The Environment Protection Rules, 1998(EPR) has identified and make inventory explaining
what type of the projects needs Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Initial
Environmental Examination (IEE) provisioning (Rule 3, schedule 1) and EIA(Rule 3, schedule
2) and make mandatory processes of IEE and EIA.
According to these rules, some of the projects listed and related to LBs functioning are as
follows;
IEE related:
Collection of boulders, gravel and sand and extraction of other minerals from forest areas
Construction of slaughter house with the investment above one million,
Extraction of sand, gravel and soil from river surface (10-50 cu.m/day),
Road construction: district road, urban road rural road and other minor roads,
Construction of major bridges,
Water supply schemes serving 2000 to 20000 population,
Solid waste management,
One to five km agriculture road,
Agriculture wholesale market in urban areas.
EIA related:
Extraction of sand, gravel and soil from river surface (above 50 cu.m/day)
Agriculture roads above five km,
Solid waste management serving more than 10,000 population
Implementation of development proposal in historical, archeological and cultural sites.
With those schedules, LBs are responsible to enter into the process of IEE and EIA in some of
these projects.
8
2.3 The LBs Block Grant Guideline
The LBs block grant guideline has duly prioritize the importance of poverty and environment as
cross cutting agenda and taken as two faces of a single coin. It has duly address promotional
activities that promolgulate environment, climate change, renewable energy, poverty reduction
and livelihood promotion through development initiatives. The guideline made mandatory for the
LBs to allocate 10 percent of the development budget for women focused, 10 percent for focused
children focused and 15 % poor and excluded focused programmes. The budget is provisioned to
address the poverty and social inclusion initiatives that empower the poor and disadvantaged,
women and children in development mainstream and contribute in nation building campaign
with due attention to environment friendly development.
Similarly, the guideline has duly considered the environment and climate change adaption,
resilience and mitigation measures as follows:
Negative list for capital investment includes programme or project that has adverse effect
to environment and does not acknowledge to Environment protection Act and its
regulations.
Mitigation measures/adoption of climate change, development of rural energy technology
in capital investment projects.
In implementation and management,provides directives to follow Environment Protection
Act/Regulation.
Other Specific arrangements are given in matrix below:
Key area of environmental conservation and climate change Adaptation provisionedingin LBs
Block Grant Guidelines is presented in table 2. The table 2 elaborates the the objective of
environmental conservation and climate change provision for bith DDC and VDCs is to address
the environment conservation, protection and climate change resilience and mitigation.
It also elaborates the scope of social mobilization is to address the poverty augmenting different
awareness raising activities, informing the citizens on the role, right and responsibilities of the
citizens, services provisioned by the government to different section of the society and make
them able to demand the social, economic, environmental/natural resources, human resources,
cultural and physical infrastructure. Capital grants are to be allocated for forests and
environment conservation, climate change, renewable energy, disaster management and others in
case of VDCs and one additional provision of livelihood in DDC. The LBs are to implement
promotional investment (poverty mapping, inclusion, livelihood of poor etc.) to uplift the
backward section citizen in all livelihood functions. 14 steps planning process has been
executing in all LBs where the prioritization of the projects are done for the projects demanded
by target group rooted up from REFLECT followed by CAC, WFC, IPC and through poverty
stricken pockets. While conducting any development projects feasibility study ahs to be done
considering social, economic, climate change, environment and sustainability that has to be
included in prefeasibility study as well. For road construction project, special arrangement to
duly consider EPA 2053 and EPR 2054 and 'social and environment safety Measures guide
9
including bio-engineering, management of environment, conservation and social inclusion are to
be duly addressed.
Table 2 : Key area of environmental conservation and climate change provision
VDC DDC
Objective of Grant- Environmental
conservation and addressing climate change
Objective of Grant -Environmental conservation
and addressing climate change
Scope of social mobilization(poverty
reduction)
Scope of social mobilization(poverty reduction)
Scope of Capital grant(Forests and
environment conservation, climate change,
Renewable energy, disaster management
Scope of Capital grant(Forests and environment
conservation, climate change, Renewable energy,
disaster management , livelihood)
Scope of Promotional Investment (poverty
mapping, inclusion, livelihood of poor etc.)
Scope of Promotional Investment (poverty
mapping, inclusion, livelihood of poor,
environment and climate change etc.)
Prioritization(project demanded by target
group through SM)
Prioritization(project demanded by target group
through SM, poverty stricken pockets)
Feasibility study(consideration of
environment and sustainability). Using
standard as specified by GoN
Feasibility study(consideration of environment
and sustainability) – need to include in
prefeasibility study as well using standard format
as specified by GoN
Road construction- special
arrangement(consideration of EPA 2053 and
EPR 2054 and 'social and environment safety
Measures –guide)
Road construction- special
arrangement(consideration of EPA 2053 and
EPR 2054 and 'social and environment safety
Measures –guide)
ME (environment conservation and social
inclusion)
ME (environment conservation and social
inclusion included)
Source : Author's analysis.
3.4 The Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme
The Poverty-Environment Initiative (PEI) is a UNEP/UNDP programme. PEI in Nepal supports
poverty reduction and inclusive development by integrating pro-poor climate and environmental
concerns into development planning and economic decision making. The PEI is not designed as
a stand-alone project as such but rather it aims to provide a programmatic framework for targeted
support to national and local level planning, budgetary and economic decision making processes
10
through ongoing UNDP supported programmes, in particular, Strengthening National Planning
and Monitoring Capacity of NPC (SNPMC-NPC) and the Local Government Community
Development Programme (LGCDP). At the national level, the PEI helps strengthen the NPC’s
capacity to integrate environmental concerns of poor women and men into planning, budgeting,
and economic decision at national and local level. Similarly, at the local government level, it
strengthens capacity of local governance actors and civil society to integrate environmental
concerns of poor women and men into planning, budgeting, monitoring, and evaluation at local
level by providing technical support to the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
(MoFALD), and District Development Committees (DDCs) and Village Development
Committees (VDCs). The PEI Programme Framework complements the existing project
documents of the above two projects, which include the stipulated PEI activities in their
respective Project Annual Work Plans (AWPs).
The joint UNDP-UNEP Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme in Nepal was initiated
in 2009 (scoping phase started in 2009). Land, forests, minerals and water remain the key natural
resources in Nepal for human survival, livelihoods and climate change adaptation, with natural
resources being the livelihood base of almost 90% of the population and representing almost
40% of GDP. Rural populations, especially the poor, landless, indigenous people and women
rely heavily on forests and land resources for their livelihoods. More than 80% of people derive
their livelihoods from forests. Around 86% of total energy for cooking and 40% of fodder comes
from forests. 66% of the total gainfully employed population is engaged in the primary sector
including agriculture, forestry, and fishery (2001 census). The share of the primary sector in the
Mountain region is 81%, compared with 68% and 60% in the Hill and Terai regions,
respectively. While Nepal is endowed with social, agriculture and biological diversity, it
experiences chronic poverty which is more severe in rural areas than urban areas. Considerable
progress has been made in poverty reduction, however unsustainable use of these natural
resources has resulted in widespread environmental degradation now threatening especially poor
people’s livelihood and health.
To contribute addressing these issues and promoting sustainable development, the PEI Nepal
programme supports central and local governments to integrate environmental, poverty and
climate challenges in planning and budgeting processes to achieve a greener, more inclusive and
more sustainable development path. Thereby the country programme is contributing to the
achievement of national development goals and the overall PEI Programme outputs. PEI Nepal
is led by the Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development (MoFALD), embedded in the
larger, multi-donor Local Government and Community Development Programme- Phase II.
With the implementation of PEI following achievements have been made:
a) Strengthen integrated planning, budgeting, monitoring and evaluation and coordination
amongst local governance actors
Local Bodies (LBs) in Nepal are improving their capacity and integrating the
environmental issues in the LB planning and budgeting. They are now allocating budget
to poor and marginalized communities’ to address the pertaining issues. “Planning and
Decision-Making Guidelines” of local bodies were revised and approved incorporating
11
PEC issues. Fourteen steps planning process of MoFALD encourages the LBs
mainstreaming of environmental issues into planning and infrastructure development.
Monitoring of Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) reports of sand gravel and stones
and rural roads have been completed in 10 districts in 2014. Different DDCs have been
forwarded more than 50 IEE reports on sand, gravel and stones and Rural Roads and have
been approved by MoFALD. PEI extended technical backstopping services in
institutionalizing third party monitoring of IEE reports.
Rupandehi District Development Council has sanctioned two policies related to
environment friendly infrastructure development activities. Environmental issues should
be considered even in implementing the small scale infrastructure by DDC and budget for
environment should be build up in the project cycle as guided by Environment Protection
Act and Regulation.
Prefeasibility, Initial Environment Examination (IEE) and survey design should be done
while implementing infrastructure projects as guided by Environment Protection Act,
Regulation and DDC Block Grant Mobilization Guidelines. It is mandatory to allocated at
least 10% budget of every road projects for maintenance fund and 4-5 percent for
environment conservation and climate change and adaptation.
The NPC updated its monitoring indicators to incorporate poverty-environment
components and reviewed its project prioritization criteria to integrate PEC needs.
3.5 National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA)
Ministry of Environment has prepared the National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA-2010) and
assess vulnerability mapping of district of Nepal and according to it 26 districts are very high, 28
are high, 16 are low and five are in very low vulnerability category. It identified poor people are
vulnerable from all livelihood capitals including physical, infrastructure, human resource, social,
natural and financial. The plan has segregated the impacts of climate change in 6 fundamental
areas and one cross-cutting area. Those areas are:
1. Agriculture and Food security (declining crop/livestock production, loss of crops)
2. Water Resource and Energy (too much and too little water- agriculture, health and
sanitation, human settlement, infrastructure,renewable energy, forest fire, solar power)
3. Disaster (landslides, flood, drought, Glacier Lake Outburst Flood- GLOF)
4. Forests and Bio-diversity (Agro-ecological shift, pest and diseases, fire, habitat loss,
depletion of wetlands)
5. Public health (Vector borne diseases, water-borne diseases – malaria, kala-azar,
encephalitis etc)
6. Urban Settlement (Infrastructure, road, bridges, buildings, migration)
7. Cross-cutting sector: - Gender relations, vulnerability of poor and women, and people
based on natural resources for their livelihood.
The main mechanism it has proposed for NAPA implementation is as follow:
National mechanism coordination and monitoring by Ministry of Environment and
implementation coordination by line ministries,
Regional mechanism (technical) to support local adaptation
District level coordination committee by DDC
12
Implementation at Local level: GoN line offices (Agriculture, forest, health, technical
offices), NGO, CBO, Private, SPs
Village coordination by VDC and implemented through LAs, CBO, NGOs and private
sector
Allow to utilize 80 % resources at local level project implementation.
The Local Adaptation Plan for Action- LAPA (Framework) have been designed and piloted
initially in 13 districts of Far west and Mid western regions are selected for LAPA
implementation with provision of extension to other regions and districts in accordance with
vulnerability assessment report.
3.6 Three Year Plan (2013/14 -2015/16)
Three years Plan (TYP) 2013/14 – 2015/16 put its goal to reduce poverty level at 21 percent and
achieving MDGs augmenting sustainable economic development approach. It had emphasized
and anchored the development goal streamlining Environment and Climate Change as cross
cutting with judicious use and management of natural resources and carbon trading. Two
objectives of the three year plan (2013/14 – 2015/16) are implement the development projects
by i) prioritizing green development concept with triangulating the human activities with
environment friendly development and construction works and ii) adaptation and adapting
negative environmental impact articulating the mitigation measures.
The key strategies include among others:
1) Internalization of environmental management in developmental works,
2) Continuation of disaster mitigation, poverty reduction and poverty-environment initiative,
climate change adoption and sustained conservation and utilization of natural resource while
implementing development programme/projects.
Likewise, it mentions working strategies among others as:
1) Ensure role and responsibilities of agencies in implementing national adaptation plan, 2) to
collaborate with local bodies, development partners, NGOs and COs,
2) Emphasize the development of infrastructures that is environment friendly and support
climate change adaptation,
3) Implement poverty environment initiative programme effectively to integrate environment
and poverty reduction in implementing development projects,
4) Make necessary arrangement to invest certain percentage of income in natural resource
conservation and research activities from the revenue generated from the natural resources
utilization.
Moreover, Decentralization, Self-governance and Local Development Chapter pin marksed pro-
poor, inclusive and gender equitable development. It has stated participatory infrastructure
development with the use of local resources and technology considering environment friendly
and climate change adaptation among others.
13
The NPC updated its monitoring indicators to incorporate poverty-environment components and
reviewed its project prioritization criteria to integrate PEC
3.7 Environmentally Friendly Local Governance
The Government has developed and institutionalized the “Environmentally Friendly Local
Governance” framework that will be benefit poor people particularly women and marginalized
groups. A communication strategy to change behavior on environmental management has been
developed targeted at all levels of stakeholders, from central government to households.
MoFALD facilitated Environmentally Friendly Local Governance (EFLG) training with PEI
support in early 2015. As a result of the training, participants implementing EFLG were asked to
prepare a Project Funding Matrix that received implementation support of US$4.71m from
MoFALD under the Local Governance and Community Development Programme (LGCDP)
Phase II, a national programme largely funded by DfID which PEI is aligned to. The activities
identified are environmentally friendly activities. Some examples of the activities proposed
include biogas installation, solar home development, and tourism management. One identified
pond conservation as a key activity, with a view to benefitting the poor by providing resources
for fishing.
NPC, 2013 Climate Change Budget Code, Application review recommended, it is required is to
develop detailed guidelines to suit each ministry defining details of the activities and areas for
additional work for specific ministry. Like, MoFALD may require a section on the roles of DDC
and VDC in planning climate activities and allocating funds from various sources including
INGOs to be tracked while other ministry may simply need definition of climate activities in
more detail than explained by the quick reference guide. Following are the highlights:
The budget categories Recurrent costs: Recurrent cost is the expenditure other than capital and
financing and which are annually spent by the government organization. Such expenditure
includes consumption expenditure, expenditure necessary for daily activities, the expenditure for
the services for public welfare and the grants provided to the institutions responsible for such
public welfare services. The interest expenses of the loan and refund expenditure also include
under this heading.
Capital costs: The expenditure made for fixed assets like furniture and fixtures, vehicles,
machinery parts and instruments etc. are known as capital costs. The capital expenditure adds
fixed assets, which can be used for further production activities. Stock of assets for strategic
importance and emergency use, land, buildings, roads, canals, electricity generation plant, forest
plantation, mining, up gradation of projects, research study, consultation services for such capital
nature of activities are also included under capital expenditure. Custom duty & tax and the
compensation for the loss of capital are also included under capital expenditure.
Budget number: Budget for each programme is represented by 7 digits in the Redbook. The
first 3 digits of the budget indicate Ministries or Constitutional bodies. The fourth, fifth and the
sixth digit indicate department, office and project. The 7th digit indicates the type of budget,
which are categorized under three sub-groups i.e. recurrent, capital, and financing. If the 7th digit
14
is 3, it indicates that the budget is allocated for recurrent costs, whereas number 4 indicates
capital costs. If the 7th digit is 5 under the budget head it indicates financing costs. If the budget
has financing component the budget head would appear as 329 1065, while for recurrent it will
be represented by 329 1063. The budget number for annual budget of National Forest
Development and Management Programme of the Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation is
always represented: i) Ministry of Forest and Soil Conservation- 329, ii) National Forest
Development and Management Program- 106, iii) Recurrent cost- 3, iv) Capital cost- 4 and v)
financing- 5.
3.8 The MCPM guideline
Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) has amended its guideline in 2069 incorporating the
poverty and environmental issues to be considered by the LBs in the project cycle. This guideline
has been used for review of the MCPM for last three years (2014, 2015, 2016) in DDCs and
Municipalities, while PM is not yet been used in VDC but it is piloted.
3.8.1 Provisions of the environmental issues in DDC MCPM
There are a total of 9 MC and 46 PM indicator for the measurement of Minimum Condition and
Performance Measures of DDC. None of the MC indicators are directly related to environmental
poverty areas. There are a total of 46 PM indicators out of which nine indicators are related to
environmental poverty which are as follows: Details of the definition has been presented in
Annex: 1
PM Indicator 6. Environment and Energy Management
According to the provision made in LSGA article 189 (1)(GA) and (GHA), district development
plan must allocate the budget for water, electricity, forest and environment and expenditure done
accordingly. The indicator further defined i) Environment Management Plan (EMP) provisioned
in infrastructure development projects; ii) planning and implementation of water, electricity and
energy sector done; iii) planned and implemented activities that minimize the effect of climate
change. District level policy on heavy machinery and equipment approved and implemented.
"Heavy equipment and machinery" means equipment that make hazard for environment
(Bulldozer, Excavator, Roller, Loader etc) that displace the labor work. Two marks for positive
response to all three sub indicator, 1 mark for positive response in two sub indicators and zero
marks otherwise. Verification shall be done from district development plan, approved district
level policy on heavy machinery and equipment in place.
PM Indicator: 7 Cross cutting sectors included in participatory plan implementation
Sectors like environment protection, disaster risk management and child friendly governance
must be anchor with participatory planning process and take approval from the DDC council.
The indicator has been defined, i) DDC has district level policy in place on environment
protection, disaster risk management and child friendly governance, ii) District development plan
having program and activities to implement the policy, allocate the budget and made expenditure
accordingly. Positive answer for all sub indicators will get two and zero otherwise. Verification
15
can be done by measurement table of DDC containing policy for all mentioned sector, annual
progress report
Indicator: 8 Targeted Group Development Program
Program and activity-wise budget as specified in the resource management plan must be
allocated for the direct benefit of targeted groups. The indicator has been defined, i) Targeted
group development criteria and prioritization for overall district in place and use it for the
development of targeted group development program, ii) Projects selected based on the
prioritization done by participatory planning process, iii) Minimum budget as specified in the
resource mobilization operational manual allocated for the targeted groups in current FY.
Positive answer in all sub indicators will get 2 in any two sub indicators including 1 will get 1
marks, and zero otherwise. Verification shall be done from district development plan, decision
book of DDC board, details of selected program from the participatory planning process.
Indicator: 21 Expenditure of targeted group development program
According to resource mobilization operational manual, budget allocated for the targeted group
development must be expended for same group. The indicator has been defined, i) Out of total
allocated budget for targeted group development in last FY, 80 percent or more expenditure done
for the same; ii) Out of total allocated budget for targeted group development in last FY, 60-80
percent expenditure done for the same. Affirmative answer in first sub indicator gets 3, in second
sub indicator get 2 Marks and zero for otherwise. Verification shall be done by decision
register/book of budget allocation, annual district development plan, financial details, details of
work completion as per allocation.
Indicator: 23 Budget for Agriculture and Livestock Development Program
According to article 189 (1) (KA) of district policy on agriculture and livestock must be
formulated and implement activities accordingly. Indicators has been defined as i) Policy related
to agriculture and livestock development formulated and implemented; ii) Budget allocated from
the DDF in agriculture and livestock related program in last FY; iii) At least 80 percent
expenditure done out of allocation in last FY. Projects that fall under sectoral plan, area-wise
plan or demanded project during participatory planning process should be addressed while
allocating the budget. Two Marks provided if there is affirmative answer for all sub indicators,
one Marks given if there is positive response for any two sub indicators and zero Marks for
otherwise. Verification of the indicator shall be done by observation of district agriculture and
livestock development policy, allocated budget in district development plan for agriculture and
livestock and expenditure against allocation.
Indicator: 25 Management of drinking water and sanitation Sector
Under the article 189 of act, DDC must work in drinking water and sanitation sector. Since it is
insisted by the millennium development goal, DDC must work for the development of this
sector. Indicators has been defined as, i) Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) plan prepared;
ii) Allocated specified budget for drinking water hygiene and sanitation and additional allocation
from other sources and expenditure done accordingly; iii) under the "Open Defecation Free"
16
campaign, at least 10 percent VDC declared as ODF and continue plan development to declared
municipality and VDC ODF; iv) continuous program implemented in the ODF declared VDC
and municipality for the sustainability of ODF program 5.
Positive answer for all sub indicators will get 2, in any three sub indicator get 1 Marks and zero
for otherwise. Verification shall be done by Water Hygiene and Sanitation (WASH) plan in
place, annual district development plan and annual progress review report.
Indicator: 31 Gender responsive budget
For the attainment of inclusive development in district development plan, DDC must prepare
gender responsive and inclusive district development plan, implement it and gender responsive
budget audit must be done in annual basis following the gender budget audit guideline 2007.
Indicator has been defined as, i) Planned for gender responsive and inclusive activities done; ii)
Activities and budget implemented as per planning; iii) Gender responsive budget audit done.
Affirmative answer for all sub indicators will get 2, in two sub indicators will get 1and zero
marks for otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing district development plan, annual
progress report and gender responsive and inclusive budget audit report.
Indicator: 34 Impact evaluations of projects and activities
Impact study of the project of cost estimate more than 20 million implemented by DDC must be
done two years after the completion of the projects as provisioned in law 206 of regulation. The
indicator has been defined, i) Impact evaluation of the specified project done in specified time
frame; ii) Impact on poverty reduction, production, employment, ecology and environment
covered in the impact evaluation. Impact evaluation means, change have been made in
livelihood, employment, poverty reduction, access to services, social, environment, ecology and
holistic development due to project implementation. Affirmative answer all sub indicators will
get 2, in one sub indicator will get 1 Marks and zero for otherwise. Verification shall be done by
impact evaluation report of previous FY of last FY that was completed at the cost more than Rs.
20 million.
Indicator: 35 Social security/protection Program
Detailed list of individual who are eligible to get social security/protection allowance in all
VDCs and municipalities must be updated in forwarded to Ministry before Magh (Jan-Feb) of
the current FY. Progress on distribution of social security/protection allowance must be
forwarded on trimester and annual basis. The advance taken for social security/protection
allowance must be settled in time as specified by the law. The indicator has been defined with
sub indicators as i) Updated list of individuals who are eligible to get social security/protection
allowance in the current FY prepared at the end of Magh (Jan-Feb) of last FY and forwarded to
ministry.; ii) Detail updated list forwarded on trimester and annual basis after deleting the names;
iii) Advance settled as specified by law and in time frame. Three Marks shall be given if there is
affirmative answer for all three sub indicators, 2 Marks for affirmative answer in any two
including first sub indicator and zero otherwise. Verification of the indicator meet shall be done
up on the observation of updated list of individual who are eligible for getting social
security/protection allowance of VDCs and municipalities, advance settlement and distribution
17
details of social security/protection allowance forwarded to ministry in trimester and annual
basis.
3.8.2 Provisions of the environmental issues in Municipality
Indicator: 2 Budget Allocations for the Development of Targeted Groups
Except from the conditional grant of the municipality fund, after deducting the amount that must
be spare for matching fund, as specified in the municipality grant guideline, footing on the
gender equality and social inclusion policy, for promotion of disadvantaged section of the
society, budget must be allocated on following program/ projects that will directly benefit to the
targeted groups : a) Allocated minimum of 10 percent budget for those program/projects that will
directly benefit to disadvantaged women of all sections; b) Allocate minimum of 10 percent
budget for those program/projects that will directly benefit to disadvantaged children of all
sections; c) Allocate minimum of 15 percent budget for those program/projects that will directly
benefit to disadvantaged group (Elderly people, dalit, adibasi/janjati, persons having different
capacity, Madhesi, Muslium and backward group) including the areas and targeted groups as
specified by Government of Nepal issuing notice. The indicator has been defined as , i) Allocate
minimum of 10 percent and approve the budget from the municipal council on the
programs/projects that directly benefit to women from disadvantaged group; ii) Allocate
minimum of 10 percent and approve the budget from the municipal council on the
programs/projects that directly benefit to children from disadvantaged group; iii) Allocate
minimum of 15 percent budget for those program/projects that will directly benefit to
disadvantaged group (Elderly people, dalit, adibasi/janjati, persons having different capacity,
Madhesi, Muslium and backward group) including the areas and targeted groups as specified by
Government of Nepal issuing notice. Positive answer for all sub indicators will get 2 any two
Marks 1 marks and zero otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing annual planning
book of the municipality, total capital budget of the municipality, total budget allocation for the
targeted groups in current FY.
Indicator: 3 Expenditure on the Targeted Groups Development
As specified in the municipality grant manual, expenditure must be done for the targeted groups
that were allocated in last FY. Indicator has been defined as, i) More than 80 percent expenditure
done against the allocation for all three targeted groups; ii) 60-80 percent expenditure done
against the allocation for all three targeted groups. Affirmative answer for first sub indicator 2
and second sub indicator 1 marks, and zero otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing
annual program book of last FY, annual progress report of last FY, record of allocation and
expenditure in last FY.
Indicator: 4 Child development and protection
According to article 96 and different sun article of the Act, child development and protection
activities must be done. Government of Nepal had been signed in different international charter
related to child survival, protection and development and act, policy and laws have been
endorsed. Service delivery and specified work must be done managing the resources
acknowledging the mentioned act, law, policy, working calendar, operational manual, working
structure. Indicator has been defined, i) Budget allocation and expenditure done on child
18
education/child development center; ii) Maintain record of disable, helpless and orphan; iii)
Work related to abolition of child labor done; iv) Use of child friendly local governance system.
Positive answer for all sub indicators will get 2, any three will get 1 and zero Marks otherwise
marks. Verification shall be done by observing annual program, budget book, report on the
organization development, and documents on manual and working calendar, job description to
the staff.
Indicator: 6 Implementation of Social Security/protection Schemes
According to the social security/protection operational manual 2008, social protection program
must be implemented in the municipality area. Detail list of the beneficiary group on the
distribution of budget provided by the Government of Nepal and report must be forwarded to
concern authority. Indicator has been defined as, i) Disseminate the information within the first
trimester through bulletin/book with the list persons who receive social security/protection
allowance as per list of targeted groups in the last FY; ii) Delete the name from the list who died
of migrate who were receiving the allowance; iii) Following details of the persons who are
eligible to get the allowance in current FY must be forwarded to DDC before the end of Poush
(Dec-Jan) of last FY (a) Number of elderly people including dalits, excluding dalits, single
women, partially disable and helpless, fully disable and helpless, extinct ethnicity people and iv)
Settlement of advance before 35 days taken from the DDC against the social protection
allowance. Positive answer in all sub indicators will get 2, in any three get 1 and zero marks
otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing Book of the persons who received allowance,
receipt of the distribution, citizen chartered, bulletin, records of public hearing, reports submitted
to DDC
Indicator: 21 Feasibility study
As per the article 113 of the act, feasibility study of projects must be done determining the basis
of selection of the projects. As per the municipality grant manual, the physical infrastructure
projects that have more than 5 million cost estimates, feasibility study of such project must be
done before the approval from the municipal council. Social, financial, environmental including
technical, cost estimates, map, design, specification and sustainability of the project must be
included in the feasibility study report. The indicator further explain as i) Feasibility study of all
physical infrastructure related projects of cost estimate more than 5 million prepared before the
approval from the municipal council; ii) Feasibility study of minimum of 50 percent of physical
infrastructure projects that have cost estimate more than 5 million; iii) Social, financial,
environmental including technical, cost estimates, map, design, specification and sustainability
of the project included in the feasibility study report. Project cover, that project (s) completed
within one year or carryover type of the projects in regards to this indicator. When the entire sub
indicator has positive response obtain 2 marks, when positive in second and third sub-indicators
has positive response obtain 1 mark and zero otherwise. Verification could be done project
documents, feasibility study report, and annual planning book
Indicator: 33 Sanitation and waste management
As per sub section (6) and (7) of section (GA) of sub article (1) of the act, under the role,
responsibility and authority of the municipality, it is mentioned to undertake sanitation activities
and collection of waste/garbage, transportation and management. Sanitation and waste
19
management must be undertaken effectively and efficiently. Indicator has been defined, i)
Included water management related activities in the annual program, ii) Differentiate the organic
and inorganic waste at the source and implement such activities at least in 25 percent wards of
the municipality; iii) Collect the differentiated waste differently; iv) Mobilize private/community
sector for waste management; v) Manage the dumping site to dispose the waste; vi) Activity
undertaken for reuse of the waste; vii) Awareness activities undertaken on the waste
management. Affirmative answer for all sub indicators will get 4, any six get 3, any five get 2
and zero Marks for otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing annual program and
network for waste management, contract with the private/community organization, data
published by the municipality, onsite observation
Indicator: 34 Environment management
Municipality must manage entertainment spot, play ground, museum (Sangrahalaya), zoo, park
despite of environment protection related activities as specified in the section (GA) of sub
section (1) and section (JA) of sub section (2) of article 96 of act. Similarly sub section (1) of
section (YAN) of sub article (1) of article 96 of the same act, plantation must be done in both
side of the roads to promote the greenery and support for environment protection. As per the
environment protection act, 1996 (2053 BS) and same regulation 1997 different provisions have
been done for the management of environment and the environment management guideline 2004
(2061 BS) have been endorsed. In addition to this, the circulations done by the ministry on
environmental social protection guideline must also be acknowledged. Indicator has been
defined, i) Initial Environment Evaluation (IEE)/ Environmental Impact Assessment done
wherever it is apply; ii) Greenery maintained in the municipality area with the tree plantation
(trees must be planted in at least 10 percent of the total roads area and protect the environment);
iii) Formulate and implement the environment protection plan; iv) Formulate the mitigation
activities to reduce the climate change impact and implement it.; v) Establish separate
environment section/unit, nominate the focal person and provide job description; vi) Establish
environment protection special fund and disburse budget in it. Positive answer for all including
first and second get 4, four sub indicators including first and second get 3, in three including
second sub indicator get 2 Marks and zero for otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing
annual program and budget, reports of Initial Environment Evaluation (IEE) and Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA), observation of the roads, environment management plan in
infrastructure related projects, job description for the staff, details of the environment protection
especial fund.
Indicator: 35 Vehicle parking management
In the section (CHA) of sub article (1) of article 96 of the act, role, responsibility and authority of
the municipality and sub section (2) related to construction and transportation, bus park, rixhaw,
tanga , truck parking management in the municipality area have been provisioned. Number of
The vehicle in the municipal area has been increased tremendously. Parking management in the
municipality area must be done. Indicator has been defined as i) Management of vehicle parking
in the municipality area done; ii) Manage water, electricity and toilets in the bus park; iii) Bus
parking done in the bus park. Affirmative answers in all sub indicators get 2, any two get 1 and
zero for otherwise. Verification shall be done as decision on the management of vehicle parking/
Bus Park, onsite observation in the parking area.
20
Indicator: 36 Regulation of meat shop and management
Sub section 2 and 14 of section (YAN) of by-law (1) of article 96 of act, animal slaughter house
establishment spot and management and sub section (5) and (6) of sub article (1) of article 96 of
the act, sales of consumption goods and harmful substances that have negative effect in the
public health of municipality area must be control or displace. Regulation and management of
slaughter house must be done in coordination with concern livestock service office, consumer
right protection forum, meat businessman and animal health related institutions, since these
issues are directly related to public health and meat test act. Indicator is defined as i) Register the
meat shop and maintain its record; ii) Fixed the minimum criteria on the operation of meat shop;
ii) Regular monitoring of the meat shop done in close coordination with District Livestock
Service Office, Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and Industry, consumer right
protection forum; iii) Monitoring report submitted to municipality; iv) Decisions done on the
monitoring report in municipality board. Positive answer in all sub indicators get 2, in any three
get 1 and zero get for otherwise. Verification shall be done by decision on the management on
the meat shop/slaughter house, monitoring and supervision report and records of the action taken
and observation of the meat shop.
Indicator: 37 Promotion of the public health
As mentioned in the section (CHA) of bylaw (1) of article 96 of the act, health services of the
municipality have been made. In addition to national program municipality must implement
sanitation and health related activities, control on sales and consumption of substances that will
have negative impact in the public health and control of black market. Indicator is defined as, i)
In addition to national program, program for the promotion of public health related activities
approved by the municipal council and implement it; ii) Toilet promotion and open defecation
free program conducted at least in 25 percent wards; iii) Monitoring of the shops that sale
consumer goods in close coordination with concern government agencies, consumer right
protection forum and federation of chamber of commerce and industry; iv) Discuss on the
monitoring report in the regular municipality board meeting and action undertaken for those who
do mal practice. Positive answer in all sub indicators gets 2, in any two receive 1 and zero for
otherwise. Verification shall be done by observation of annual program and budget, annual
progress report of last FY etc.
Indicator: 38 Emergency service and disaster risk management
Organization development study must be done or the organizational structure must be updated in
In sub section 7 and 19 of miscellaneous of section (YAN) of sub article (1) of article 96 of the
act, control of disaster and fire breeder operation has been mention. Disaster Risk Management
and emergency activities must be conducted in the municipality area. The Disaster Risk
Management Plan to reduce the losses due to disaster like earthquake, land slide, fold, fire and
epidemics control and management, reduction in the loss and rescue during the disaster and
resettlement activities and emergency service must be conducted in close coordination with
concern stakeholder and community. INdicator has been defined as, i) Areas of disaster, status of
the risk, risk reduction measures and institutional arrangement done and Disaster Risk
Management Plan prepared and approved by the municipal council; ii) Disaster deduction
21
activities implemented based on the Periodic Disaster Risk Management Plan; iii) Operation of
fire breeder; iv) Establish disaster risk management fund and disburse budget on it. Affirmative
answer for all Marks get 4, affirmative answer in any three get 3, affirmative answer in any two 2
Marks and zero given otherwise while verification shall be done by observing disaster Reduction
Management Plan and annual disaster management activities, record of disaster reduction fund
and record of services provided in last FY.
Indicator: 40 Implementation of national building conduct (Samhita)and building
construction
As per building act 1995, article 10, 11 and 12, the individual or an institution who wanted to
construct building in municipality area must take approval of building design as per national
building conduct and criteria. During getting the approval structural design must be submitted as
per annex: 1 of building regulation 2009. On site supervision and monitoring must be done, if
any mal practice done during monitoring, action must be taken. Based on the process mentioned
in article 149 to 164 of chapter 9, building construction in the municipality area as provisioned in
article 155 and 156 must be implemented. The building must be disabled friendly. Public
awareness activities to reduce the earthquake risk reduction must be conducted. Indicator has
been defined as; i) Collect application form as per structural design mentioned in annex: 1 of
building regulation 2009 while taking license of building construction; ii) On site supervision
and monitoring of the building construction done in the municipality area to assure that the
building construction is done as per building conduct 2009 and action taken against any mal
practice done.; iii) Management of approving the building design as per national building
conduct; iv) Approval of the government/ public building assuring that it is disable friendly; v)
Public awareness raising activities and orientation program undertaken on earthquake proof
building in order to reduce the earthquake risk and preparedness. Affirmative answer in all
Marks could get 2, affirmative answer in any three Marks receive 1 and zero given otherwise.
Verification shall be done by observing approved building construction and building design
approval criteria, national building conduct 2009 implementation manual.
3.8.3 Provisions of the environmental issues in VDC MCPM
There is three PM indicators related to environmental poverty.
Indicator: 3 Targeted group and area development program budget allocation and
expenditure
Out of total available capital budget of last year, VDC must allocate budget for targeted group
and area development program as specified by resource mobilization operational manual. The
indicator further explain as i) Last year's VDC council allocate minimum of ten percent budget
for current FY program that provide direct benefit to women and children of poor group; ii) Last
year's VDC council allocate at least fifteen (15) percent budget for the activities that directly
benefit to economically poor of all ethnic group, economically and socially deprived group and
section as declared by Government of Nepal publishing notice as targeted group and community;
iii) Project wise budget sanction as per allocation in marks 1 and 2 mentioned above; iv) Last
year's council allocate budget for current year on agriculture sector as specified; v) Eighty (80)
percent expenditure done out of allocation for mentioned group and area in 1,2and 4 above. Full
marks (10 ) shall be given where affirmative answer for all Marks, five (5) marks when
22
affirmative answer in one Marks and zero otherwise. Verification shall be done by observing
approved annual program and budget, decision book of VDC and allocated budget for targeted
group and area, contract of the approved project, project completion report, project-wise
expenditure and monitoring and decision on the completion of project.
Indicator: 5 Social security/protection program
Based on the social security/protection operational manual, updated list adding and removing the
name of people who are eligible to receive social security/protection allowance, distribution of
social security/protection allowance, settlement of advance must be publicized. Indicator further
defined as i) updated list after removing the name of persons who died and migrated but getting
social security/protection allowance in last FY and ii) Publicized name list of the people who
received social security/protection allowance in last FY before the end of Shrawan (July-Aug) of
current FY on notice board of VDC, health institution and other public places. When affirmative
answer for both the Marks 2 marks and zero otherwise shall be given. Verification of the
indicator meet shall be done by locating list of persons who received social security/protection
allowance, list of people after deleting dead and migration and notice with signature of witness.
Indicator: 7 Village Profile
VDC must collect the basic information from the VDC area and prepare detail showing overall
picture of VDC. Information must be collected using the format developed by Ministry and
forwarded to DDC. Such profile must be updated in every five (5) years. Indicator further
defined as i) Village profile prepared in accordance to the format developed by the ministry; ii)
Village profile approved by VDC council; iii) The updated profile forwarded to DDC. Full
marks (2) shall be given when all the Marks have positive response and zero otherwise.
Verification of the indicator meet shall be done by locating village profile, decision of VDC
council, dispatched register and disused covering letter of forwarding profile to DDC
3.8.4 Grant distribution based on MCPM result
The additional grant to the DDC and Municipality is distributed based on the MCPM result
using following criteria:
1. If the DDC/Municipality fail to perform minimum condition, no any additional capital
grant is provided despite the specified minimum capital grant.
2. If the minimum condition is fulfilled but minimum score/Marks in performance
measure will not be met, 20 percent additional grant isbe deducted from the provisional
capital budget.
3. Among the MCPM passed DDCs/Municipalities three each best performing is
provided additional 20 percent capital grant .
Distribution of the additional capital grant for the remaining DDCs/Municipality will be done as
follows:
1. From among the list of higher score 25 percent receive 15 percent additional capital grant
2. Next 25 percent from the list receive 10 percent additional capital grant
23
3. The capital grant is deducted by 10 percent from among the next 25 percent from the list
4. Remaining 25 percent DDCS/municipality who are at the bottom of the list get additional
capital grant deducting 15 percent from the allocation.
3.8.5 Process of grant distribution in VDCs
If the VDC fail to perform minimum condition, no any additional capital grant isprovided .
Additional capital grant is distributed as follows3:
If the minimum condition is performed and minimum score/Marks in performance
measure will not be meeting, 20 percent grant is deducted
Among the MCPM passed VDCs in the district one from each best performing VDC
isprovided 20 percent additional grant.
Distribution of the grant for the remaining VDCs is done as follows:
1. From among the list of higher score VDCs 25 percent VDC receive 15 percent additional
grant
2. Next 25 percent VDCs from the list receive 10 percent additional grant
3. The grant is deducted by 10 percent from among the next 25 percent VDCs from the list
4. Remaining 25 percent VDCS who are at the bottom of the list get grant deducting 15
percent from the allocation.
3.8.6 New and old MCPM guideline with respect to environmental poverty indicators
At the beginning of 2016, the LBFC has revised MCPM guidelines. These guidelines have not
been implemented yet. In the VDC guideline one PMs Indicator (indicator no 13-environment
management) directly related to environment has been placed. The scoring of this indicator
includes five out of 100. However, in case of DDC and Municipality there are no any changes in
the provisions of environmental poverty indicators so far.
4 Implementation status of environmental poverty indicators of DDC
4.1 Trend of Marks obtained by DDCs in environmental poverty indicators
Table 3 below explains on the trend of score obtained by the DDCs for environmental poverty
related indicators. There are nine PMs indicators in environmental poverty and 20 Marks are
provisioned out of 100. The average Marks obtained from FY 2012/13 to 2014/15 is found in
decreasing trend in most of the indicators. Very consistent result is fund in indicator 21
expenditure of targeted group development program which is 2.5, 2.4 and 2.3 respectively out of
full marks 3 in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15.
3To date this system is not applied in VDC. However, in FY 2016/17 government distributed Rs 1.5
billion on MCs procedure. Those VDCs not complying in MCs lose additional grant( Rs 1.5 billion ). .
24
Table: 3 Trend of Marks obtained by DDCs in environmental poverty indicators
Indicator No Indicator definition
Total
Marks
Allocated
Avg Marks obtained
012/13 013/14 014/15
6 Management of environment and energy 2 1.4 1.2 1.5
7 Participatory planning and cross cutting sectors 2 1.3 1.2 1.1
8 Targeted group development program 2 1.9 1.7 1.8
21 Expenditure of targeted group development program 3 2.5 2.4 2.3
23 Budget for Agriculture and Livestock Development
Program 2 1.5 0.9 0.9
25 Management of drinking water and sanitation Sector 2 1.9 1.6 1.5
31 Gender Responsive Budget 2 1.5 1 1.3
34 Impact Evaluation of the Projects 2 0.3 0.2 0.3
35 Social Protection Program 3 2 1.5 1.6
Total 20
Source : Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
Budget for Agriculture and Livestock Development Program was significantly down fall as the
average marks obtained were 1.5, 0.9 and 0.9 out of 2 full marks in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and
2014/15 respectively.
4.2 Situation of Marks obtained and environmental poverty indicator of DDC
Table 4 entails that, full marks for PM is100 and cumulative for 75 districts is 7500. The percent
marks obtained for all 46 indicators in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 is 64.5 percent, 58.0
percent and 55.5 percent while the marks obtained in environmental poverty indicators are 71.1,
58.3 and 60.3 percent. Thus the marks obtained environmental poverty indicators are more
compared to total indicators. It is found that, the marks obtained trend is not consistent and
fluctuate.
Table: 4 Situation of Marks obtained and environmental poverty indicator by DDC
Fiscal year
Total Marks Total for Environmental Poverty
Allocated Obtained Percent Allocated Obtained Percent
2012/13 7500 4838 64.5 1500 1066.0 71.1
2013/14 7500 4350 58.0 1500 874.0 58.3
2014/15 7500 4185 55.8 1500 905 60.3
Source : Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
4.3 Situation of Marks obtained in other indicators and environmental poverty indicator
Table 5 explains on the total Marks obtained in indicators other than environmental poverty is
62.9 percent, 57.9 percent and 54.7 percent respectively in fiscal years 2012/13, 2013/14 and
25
2014/15, which is 71.1 percent, 58.3 percent and 60.3 percent in environmental poverty
indicators. It entails that, the performance of DDCs in environmental poverty related indicator is
better than the other indicators.
Table: 5 Situation of Marks obtained in other indicators and environmental poverty
indicator by DDC
Fiscal year
Total Marks for other indicator
Total for Environmental Poverty
Allocated Obtained Percent Allocated Obtained Percent
2012/13 6000 3772 62.9 1500 1066.0 71.1
2013/14 6000 3476 57.9 1500 874.0 58.3
2014/15 6000 3280 54.7 1500 905 60.3
Source : Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
4.4 Total Marks allocated and obtained in environmental poverty indicator vs total
obtained fiscal year
Table 6 clarifies the indicator-wise Marks obtained by the DDCs in last three fiscal years. It is
found that the marks obtained in FY 2012/13 are 71.1 percent followed by 60.3 percent in FY
2014/15 and 58.3 percent in FY 2013/14. Indicator 8 has better performance followed by
indicator 6, indicator 21 and least is in indicator 34 impact evaluation of the Projects.
Table: 6 Total Marks allocated and obtained in environmental poverty indicator vs total
obtained fiscal year
Indicator #
Alloca
ted
marks
Total
allocated
Marks for
75 DDCs
Total marks obtained by 75 DDCs
2012/13 Percent 2013/14 Percent 2014/1
5
Perce
nt
6 2 150 106 70.7 93 62.0 111 74.0
7 2 150 100 66.7 88 58.7 86 57.3
8 2 150 143 95.3 127 84.7 134 89.3
21 3 225 189 84.0 177 78.7 174 77.3
23 2 150 110 73.3 69 46.0 65 43.3
25 2 150 140 93.3 117 78.0 115 76.7
31 2 150 110 73.3 72 48.0 76 50.7
34 2 150 21 14.0 17 11.3 24 16.0
35 3 225 147 65.3 114 50.7 120 53.3
Total 20 1500 1066 71.1 874 58.3 905 60.3
Source : Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
26
4.5 Trend of Marks obtained by MPs in environmental poverty indicators
Table: 7 explain on the trend of Marks obtained by MPs in environmental poverty indicators.
There are 12 indicators in environmental poverty related indicators of Municipality MCPM and
these indicators value of 30 out of 100. Trend of obtaining Marks in environmental poverty
related indicators are slightly increasing trend in last three fiscal years. Budget allocation trend
for the development of targeted group is 1.3, 1.7 and 1.8 respectively in fiscal year 2012/13,
2070/72, 2014/15. Sanitation and waste management related indicators received average Marks
2.2, 1.8 and 2 out of 4 full marks in fiscal year 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively.
Table 7: Trend of marks obtained by MPs in environmental poverty indicators
Indicator
Indicator definition
Total Marks
allocated
Avg Marks obtained
012/13 013/14 014/15
2 Budget Allocation for the Development of
Targeted Groups
2
1.3 1.7 1.8
3 Expenditure on the Development of Targeted
Groups
2
1.2 1.4 1.3
4 Child development and protection 2 1.1 1.1 1.3
6 Implementation of Social Security Schemes 2 1.9 1.4 1.5
21 Feasibility study 2 1 0.9 0.8
33 Sanitation and Waste Management 4 2.2 1.8 2
34 Environment management 4 2.6 0.8 1.1
35 Vehicle Parking Management 2 1.7 1.8 1.9
36 Regularization and management of meat
shops
2
1.7 1.5 1.6
37 Promotion of public health 2 1 1.3 1.4
38 Disaster Risk management and emergency
services
4
3 2.6 2.6
40 Implementation of national building conduct
and building construction
2
1.7 1.6 1.4
30
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
While on the other hand, environmental management indicator obtained 2.6, 0.8 and 1.1 marks
out of 4 full marks in fiscal year 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively. Thus the indicators
related to environmental poverty has higher more weight while the marks obtain is bit less trend
by the municipalities.
4.6 Total Marks obtained by Municipalities environmental poverty indicator
Table 8 elaborates on the total Marks obtained by Municipalities in environmental poverty
indicator by fiscal year. Out of 100 full marks in PM indicators, Municipalities obtain 68.1
27
percent, 66.1 percent and 67.3 percent in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively while
on the other hand the marks obtained in environmental poverty indicators is 67.9 percent, 59.4
percent and 62.5 percent respectively. Thus the total Marks obtained in environmental poverty
indicators is lesser compared to total. It indicates that, the Municipalities should be worked
more seriously.
Table 8: Total marks obtained by Municipalities in environmental poverty indicator
Fiscal year
Total Marks Total for Environmental Poverty
Allocated Obtained Percent Allocated Obtained Percent
2012/13 5800 3950 68.1 1740 1182.0 67.9
2013/14 5800 3831 66.1 1740 1033.0 59.4
2014/15 5800 3901 67.3 1740 1087 62.5
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
4.7 Total Marks obtained by Municipalities environmental poverty Vs. other indicator
Table 9 entails that, Municipalities obtain 68.2 percent, 68.9 percent and 69.3 percent marks in
fiscal year 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively in contrast 67.9 percent, 59.4 percent and
62.5 percent respectively. Thus the total Marks obtained in environmental poverty is less than
other indicators explaining that the Municipalities need work hard rigorously to increase the
performance in environmental poverty indicators.
Table: 9Total Marks obtained by environmental poverty vs other indicator by municipality
and FY
Fiscal year
Total Marks Total for Environmental Poverty
Allocated Obtained Percent Allocated Obtained Percent
2012/13 4060 2768 68.2 1740 1182.0 67.9
2013/14 4060 2798 68.9 1740 1033.0 59.4
2014/15 4060 2814 69.3 1740 1087 62.5
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
4.8 Indicator-wise marks allocated and obtained in environmental poverty by municipality
Table 10 indicates on the marks allocated by indicators and the marks obtained by the
Municipalities. Highest marks obtained is against indicator 35, Vehicle Parking Management
which was 82.8 percent, 91.4 percent and 97.4 percent respectively in fiscal year 2012/13,
2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively. Marks obtained for indicator 2 Budget Allocation for the
Development of Targeted Groups was 65.5 percent, 85.3 percent and 89.7 percent respectively in
fiscal year 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 indicting increasing trend in marks obtained.
28
Table: 10 Indicator-wise marks allocated and obtained in environmental poverty by
municipality
Indicator
#
Allocated
marks
Total of 58
municipality
Total Obtained by FY
2012/13 Percent 2013/14 Percent 2014/15 Percent
2 2 116 76 65.5 99 85.3 104 89.7
3 2 116 71 61.2 80 69.0 78 67.2
4 2 116 63 54.3 64 55.2 76 65.5
6 2 116 108 93.1 82 70.7 85 73.3
21 2 116 56 48.3 52 44.8 47 40.5
33 4 232 130 56.0 102 44.0 115 49.6
34 4 232 148 63.8 45 19.4 64 27.6
35 2 116 96 82.8 106 91.4 113 97.4
36 2 116 100 86.2 85 73.3 92 79.3
37 2 116 57 49.1 77 66.4 82 70.7
38 4 232 176 75.9 148 63.8 148 63.8
40 2 116 101 87.1 93 80.2 83 71.6
Total 30 1740 1182 67.9 1033 59.4 1087 62.5
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
While on the other hand indicator 34, environment management has very poor performance of
the Municipalities which is 63.8 percent, 14.4 percent and 27.6 percent respectively in fiscal year
2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15 respectively.
4.9 Implementation status of environmental poverty indicators of VDCs
The Performance measures of VDC have not yet been implemented to date hence, no analysis is
done.
5 Impact of the environmental poverty related indicators in MCPM
Minimum Condition and Performance Measure (MCPM) system has been considered as an
integral part of the overall local governance reform system in Nepal. According to this system,
the Government of Nepal annually adjusts the additional grants to be provided to local bodies
based on their performance. LBs that met the MCs are only provided an additional capital grant
and vice versa. With an objective of improving LB performance through an incentive and
penalty mechanism, adjusting the size of the grants to the expenditure and performance capacity
in key functional areas of LBs and identifying the capacity gaps of LBs in different functional
areas, the government of Nepal has adopted this system. Local Self Governance Regulation
(LSGR) 1999 insisted to assess the performance of LBs and permits additional grant to them to
be expanded or reduced after having obtained recommendations from the Local Bodies Fiscal
Commission.
MCPM Guideline for DDCs 2008 ( with revision and amendment ) introduced a few new
environments friendly performance measure criteria such as climate change, local adaptation
29
program, disaster risk management and policy for use of heavy equipment. Similarly,
Municipality MCPM Guidelines 2009 ( with revision and amendment ) introduced disaster
management plan, environment awareness program, climate change adaptation activities,
environment unit/section establishment and deputation of environmental focal marks with terms
and reference in energy and environment unit, establishment of environment management fund
and budget mobilization criteria in performance measures.
5.1 Marks allocated and obtained by indicators related to environmental poverty in DDC
The marks allocated for the environmental poverty related indicators is 20 percent while the
marks obtained is 14.2 percent, 11.7 percent and 12.1 percent respectively in FY 2012/13,
2013/14 and 2014/15 ( table 11 ). Hence the contribution to the total performance based
additional capital grantis negligible. This might be because, the indicators are newly adjusted in
the MCPM manual and DDCs have less experience in handling the environmental poverty
related development initiatives.
Table: 11Average marks allocated and obtained by indicators of environmental poverty in DDC
Groups
Environment
2012/13
2013/14
2014/15
Total Total Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent
Group 1 16 6 37.5 5 29.1 4 25.7 4 27.6
Group 2 25 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 3 16 7 43.8 6 36.6 5 30.3 5 29.5
Group 4 26 7 26.9 4 14.3 3 10.4 3 11.3
Group 5 17 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 100 20 20.0 14 14.2 12 11.7 12 12.1
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
5.2 Marks allocated and obtained by indicators related to environmental poverty in MP
Table 12 elaborates on the total marks allocated and obtained by the municipality in performance
measure indicators. It is found that the total marks allocated for the environmental poverty
related indicators are 20 percent. In contrast to the allocation, marks obtained are 19.4 percent,
16.9 percent and 12.1 percent respectively in FY 2012/13, 2013/14 and 2014/15. The
performance of the environmental poverty related indicators are in decreasing trend and the
marks obtained is less than the allocation showing no contribution in getting additional
performance based grant.
Table: 12 Average marks allocated and obtained by indicators of environmental poverty in
municipality
Group Total Environment 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Total Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent
Group 1 20 8 40.0 5 27.4 6 28.0 6 29.6
Group 2 28 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
30
Group Total Environment 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Total Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent
Group 3 20 2 10.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 4 10 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 5 22 20 90.9 14 63.3 11 51.4 12 54.6
Total 100 30 30.0 19 19.4 17 16.9 12 12.1
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
5.3 Marks allocated, pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty related
indicators to get pass marks in DDCs
Table 13 explains on the total pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty related
indicators to get pass marks. Out of 20 percent allocated for environmental poverty indicators
contribution to get pass marks are 35.5, 29.1 and 30.2 percent respectively in FY 2012/13,
2013/14 and 2014/15. The performance based grant does not make any sense of getting pass
marks rather out of 75 DDCs top score obtaining will get 20 percent additional, next high scoring
25 percent will get additional 15 percent and next higher score obtaining 25 percent DDCs will
get additional 10 percent. Considering this condition, there is no any contribution of the
environmental poverty related indicators in getting performance based grant
Table: 13 Marks allocated, pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty indicators to get
pass marks in DDC (average marks obtained)
Group Total Pass marks 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Marks Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent
Group 1 16 7 43.8 5 66.5 4 58.7 4 63.0
Group 2 25 10 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 3 16 6 37.5 6 97.6 5 80.7 5 78.7
Group 4 26 10 38.5 4 37.1 3 27.1 3 29.3
Group 5 17 7 41.2 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Total 100 40 40.0 14 35.5 12 29.1 12 30.2
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
5.4 Marks allocated, pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty related
indicators to get pass marks in MP
Table 14 elaborates on the total pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty related
indicators to get pass marks. Out of 30 percent allocated for environmental poverty indicators
contribution for getting pass marks are 48.5, 42.3 and 44.8 percent respectively in FY 2012/13,
2013/14 and 2014/15. The performance based grant does not make any sense of getting pass
marks rather out of 25 percent top score obtaining will get 20 percent additional, next high
scoring 25 percent will get additional 15 percent and next higher score obtaining 25 percent will
get additional 10 percent. Considering this condition there is no any contribution of
environmental poverty related indicators in getting performance based grant to municipality.
31
Table: 14 Marks allocated, pass marks and contribution of environmental poverty indicators to get
pass marks in municipality (average marks obtained)
Group
Total
marks
Pass marks 2012/13 2013/14 2014/15
Marks Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent ENV Percent
Group 1 20 8 40.0 5 68.5 6 70.0 6 73.9
Group 2 28 11 39.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 3 20 8 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 4 10 4 40.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0
Group 5 22 9 40.9 14 154.8 11 125.7 12 133.5
Total 100 40 40.0 19 48.5 17 42.3 18 44.8
Source: Author's analysis based on MCPM results of LBFC.
5.5 Performance based grant disbursement
Table 15 elaborates on the performance based grant allocation. Percent of performance grant to
block grant is 40.83 percent in FY 2016/17 followed by 24.75 percent, 24.63 percent, 20.46
percent and 20.14 percent respectively in preceding years. As mentioned above, there is no any
contribution of environmental poverty related indicators both in DDC and Municipality for
performance based grant.
Table: 15 Performance based grant disbursement of past 5 years ( Rs,000) .
Fiscal
Year
VDC grant DDCs grant Municipality grant
Total
Grant
% of
Performance
grant to
block grant Total
MC
based Total
MCPM
based
Total
including
Local
Development
Fund
MCPM
based
2012/13 6692500 820000 2460000 760000 2031708 673000 11184208 20.14
2013/14 8210000 0 3200000 770000 3750000 1150000 15160000 12.66
2014/15 7360000 579510 3347000 739625 4142610 976000 14849610 15.46
2015/16 8051827 0 3674606 823760 9729524 3565707 21455957 20.46
2016/17 13832058 1500000 4000000 758106 13090000 3860737 30922058 19.79
Source: Author's analysis based on MoFALD's grant distribution sheets.
For overall block grant disbursement a smaller portion of capital grant is linked in MCPM
system. The result of MCPMs of the previous two years directly affects the additional grant in
the current fiscal year. In other words, in assessment year, the LBs will be evaluated for previous
fiscal year and its link in the additional grant will be effective for the forthcoming fiscal year. For
example, in year 2016/17 the performance of LBs is evaluated for 2015/16 and its result in the
grant allocation will be linked in 2017/18.
The average scoring of environmental poverty indicators in overall Performance indicators for
DDCs is 20 and Municipality 30 percent. To receive the greater amount of additional grant the
LBs should obtain the largest scoring and vice versa. Further, the additional grant is allocated on
expenditure need variables such as population, areas, etc. (formula). How much the additional
32
grant is received by a LBs is based on results and need based variables. If a LBs comprises the
largest expenditure need variables and secured the highest performance score receive the greater
additional grant and vice versa. If these LBs secured the lowest performance score will receive
relatively lowest additional grant.
The ratio of performance of grant to total grant is lower. Further the average scoring of
environmental poverty indicators is the lowest. Undoubtedly the overall impacts of these
indicators to the total performance based grant are insignificant4.
6. Conclusion and recommendations
6.1 Conclusion
Different initiatives have been taken by Government of Nepal (GoN), Ministry of Science
Technology and Environment (MoSTE), Ministry of Federal Affair and Local Development
(MoFALD), Ministry of Agriculture Development (MoAD), Ministry of Forest and Soil
Conservation (MoFSC) and they are working together . The National Planning Commission
(NPC) is acting as facilitating agency. Environment and poverty are the globally raised issues
which are two faces of a single coin and are taken important issues for achieving the Millennium
Development Goal. With high priority of poverty reduction through environment friendly
development initiative of Government of Nepal (GoN), MoFALD has taken different initiatives
to streamline the environmental and poverty issues in development juncture of undertaken by
Local Bodies . LBs are guided and make mandatory to incorporate the issues in LBs planning
process by MoFALD through promulgating different bylaw followed by regulation, guideline,
manual and directives. It has made mandatory to raise the issues in all 14 steps planning process
of the LBs.
Environment protection act 1997, rules 1998, indicated the Initial Environment Assessment
(IEE) and Environment Impact Assessment (EIA) before implementing sizable projects and
MoFALD is one of the line ministry that undertake such big projects of infrastructure and
economic development nature. Local resource planning and management is mandated to the LBs
under their geographical boundaries where regulations in excavating, use and management of
natural resources like sand, gravel, soil, stones and others and MoFALD enacted the LBs Block
Grant Guideline to regularize this aspect.
The Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme in Nepal was initiated in 2010. Land,
forests, minerals and water remain the key natural resources in Nepal for human survival,
livelihoods and climate change adaptation, with natural resources being the livelihood base of
almost 90% of the population and representing almost 40% of GDP. Further Ministry of Science
Technology and Environment has prepared the National Adaptation Plan of Action (NAPA-
4A simple regression was also followed to verify whether the poverty based indicators ' impact is significant. Other
things being constant, the additional grant was taken a dependent variable over the scoring of poverty based
variables. Each and every environment poverty related variables were regressed to additional grant. It was found
that none of the variables were found positive and statistically significant.
33
2010) followed by the Local Adaptation Plan for Action- LAPA (Framework) and
Environmental Friendly Local Governance (EFLG).
Monitoring of Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) reports of sand gravel and stones and
rural roads have been completed in 10 districts in 2014. Different DDCs have been forwarded
more than 50 IEE reports on sand, gravel and stones and Rural Roads and have been approved by
MoFALD. PEI extended technical backstopping services in institutionalizing third party
monitoring of IEE reports.
In these background, Local Bodies Fiscal Commission (LBFC) is operating MCPM system for
the Local Bodies on the basis of LSGA/R provisions that must be fulfilled to be eligible to get
an additional grant . The MCPM guideline has been taken as process monitoring device to
monitor the Minimum Conditions and Performance Measures environmental poverty related
indicators are provisioned and rollout in all LBs. There are no direct indicator in MCs of all type
LBs related to environmental poverty; however, it is mandatory to include environment and
poverty in planning process of the LBs. There are 9, 12 and 3 environmental poverty related
indicators with full marks 20, 30 and 14 marks for DDC, municipality and VDCs respectively
out of 100 full marks in PM.
The implementation of the environmental poverty related indicators are below the average in all
the LBs. DDC and Municipalities needs to be serious in this issue more specifically and has no
contribution for securing the performance based capital grant . Environmental poverty issues are
more serious in municipal areas as there is more human encroachment followed by extensive
needs of development infrastructures. The MCPM guidelines has provided higher weightage for
these indicators in Municipality but the Municipalities are overlooking as performance of these
indicators are comparatively low. However, DDCs are taking all the indicators equally and
performance is bit similar. The performance of these indicators are not as anticipation may be
due to lack of human resources, technology, skill and knowledge, but one cannot predict it unless
survey on implementation of environmental poverty indicators in-situ.
6.2 Recommendations
MoFALD is one of the major development line ministry of Government of Nepal (GoN) until
now, entire LBs are fostering by this ministry. Infrastructure and social development projects
have been implementing by LBs at local level. Environment and poverty are interlinked with
each other and imbalance in either part could bring negative effect in the overall livelihood of the
people. Under these circumstances, high priority should be given for environment, ecology,
climate change, mitigation, adaptation, and adoption and mitigation measures while
implementing any development projects. Following recommendations have been made in this
regards:
1. There is no specific environment and poverty related indicator in MC while the LBs are
more concern on meeting the MC whatever the case in PM shall be. In this situation, one
indicator related to environment and poverty should be placed in MC of all type of LBs.
34
2. Despite guideline provided significant weightage for the environmental poverty
indicators, implementation performance is below the average standard. This might be due
to lack of appropriate manpower, technology, skill and knowledge in these issues. Hence
it is recommended to undertake a survey on why the performance is below the average
and take necessary action to improve the performance.
3. Although, it is mandatory for all the LBs for reporting in DPMAS framework, data
production is not been observed compliance to it. Hence, it is recommended to make
mandatory to report in DPMAS Framework like that of MCPM to all the LBs, so that
they will perform better.
4. The Poverty Environment Initiative (PEI) programme, Local Adaptation Plan for Action-
LAPA (Framework) and Environmental Friendly Local Governance (EFLG) are good
initiatives to realize the LBs on the gravity of environmental poverty issues and make
them actualize. LBFC shall coordinate with these entities and streamline the indicators
accordingly.
35
References
Boex, J. (2012). Review of the criteria and grant allocation formulas for block grants to DDCs
and VDCs in Nepal (Unpublished report). Kathmandu: Local Bodies Fiscal Commission
Secretariat.
Devkota, KL.( Dec 04, 2014). Carrot and Stick. Kathmandu Post. Dec 04, 2014.
==== (2015). Formula-based Budget Allocation Framework. Kathmandu: National Planning
Commission and The World Bank.
==== (2016). Grant Equalization to LBs of Nepal. Formula-based Budget Allocation
Framework. ShreemahalPulchock : Local Bodies Fiscal Commission
LBFC (2065,2066). MCPM manuals for DDCs, Municipality and VDCs ( with revision and
amendment ) . ShreemahalPulchock : Local Bodies Fiscal Commission.
==== ( 2014, 15 ) . MCPM analysis reports, ShreemahalPulchock : Local Bodies Fiscal
Commission.
====( 2073 ). MCPM manuals for DDCs, Municipality and VDCs ( with revision and
amendment ) . Shreemahal Pulchock : Local Bodies Fiscal Commission.
LSGA (1999).Local self-governance act 1999. Kathmandu: Ministry of Law and Justice, Law
Book Management Board.
LSGR (2000).Local self-governance regulation 2000. Kathmandu: Ministry of Law and Justice,
Law Book Management Board.
LBMB ( 1997 ) .Environment protection Act, 1997. Ministry of Law and Justice, Law Book
Management Board.
==== ( 1998 ) . Environment protection Rules, 1998.Ministry of Law and Justice, Law Book
Management Board.
Ministry of Environment (2011 ). Climate Change Policy , 2011 and Framework Local
Adaptation Plan of Action, 2011.
MoF (2014) .Development Cooperation Policy, 2014.Kathmandu : Ministry of Finance
MoFALD ( 2066 ) . Social Mobilization Guidelines, 2066, LGCDP.
.Social Inclusion Policy,2066
==== (2013). Local Body Resource Mobilization and Management Operation Guidelines.
Kathmandu : Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local Development
NHDR ( 2014 ). Nepal Human Development Report 2014. Kathmandu : National Planing
Commission and United Nations Development Programme .
NPC(2013) Climate Change Budget Code, Application Review
Sharma, S. Raghunandan , TR &Devkota, KL (2015). A Study of Proposed Institutional
Arrangement for Intergovernmental Transfer in Nepal.Kathmandu : report prepared for
Local Bodies Fiscal Commission and Ministry of Federal Affairs and Local
Development.
UNDP-UNEP( 2009 ). Mainstreaming Poverty-Environment Linkages into Development
Planning, A Handbook for Practitioners, Poverty-Environment Initiative.
36
Annex: 1 Details of environmental poverty indicators
A) District Development Committee
Indicator: 6 Environments and Energy Management
6.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
According to the provision made in article 189 (1) (GA) and (GHA), district development plan
must allocate the budget for water, electricity, forest and environment and expenditure done
accordingly.
6.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on electricity and environment management Yes No
1 Environment Management Plan (EMP) provisioned in
infrastructure development projects.
2 Planning and implementation of water, electricity and
energy sector done
3 Planned and implemented activities that minimize the effect
of climate change
4 District level policy on heavy machinery and equipment
approved and implemented
Note: "Heavy equipment and machinery" means equipment that make hazard for environment
(Bulldozer, Excavator, Roller, Loader etc) that displace the labor work.
6.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in any three of "Yes", 2 points, if there is
(√) in any two box of "Yes" one point, and zero otherwise.
6.4 Sources for verification
District development plan, approved district level policy on heavy machinery and
equipment in place
Indicator: 7 Cross cutting sectors included in participatory plan implementation
7.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Sectors like environment protection, disaster risk management and child friendly governance
must be anchor with participatory planning process and take approval from the DDC council.
7.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on village profile Yes No
1 DDC has district level policy in place on environment
protection, disaster risk management and child friendly
37
SN Status on village profile Yes No
governance
2 District development plan having program and activities to
implement the policy, allocate the budget and made
expenditure accordingly.
7.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in boxes of "Yes", two points, and zero
otherwise.
7.4 Sources for verification
Measurement table of DDC containing policy for all mentioned sector, annual progress
report
Indicator: 8 Targeted Group Development Program
8.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Program and activity-wise budget as specified in the resource management plan must be
allocated for the direct benefit of targeted groups.
8.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on targeted group development Yes No
1 Targeted group development criteria and prioritization for
overall district in place and use it for the development of
targeted group development program.
2 Projects selected based on the prioritization done by
participatory planning process
3 Minimum budget as specified in the resource mobilization
operational manual allocated for the targeted groups in
current FY
8.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two points, if there is
(√) in any two box including 3 of "Yes" one point, and zero otherwise.
8.4 Sources for verification
District development plan, decision book of DDC board, details of selected program from
the participatory planning process.
Indicator: 21 Expenditure of targeted group development program
21.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
According to resource mobilization operational manual, budget allocated for the targeted group
development must be expended for same group.
21.2 Table for measurement
38
SN Status on allocation and expenditure to targeted groups Yes No
1 Out of total allocated budget for targeted group development
in last FY, 80 percent or more expenditure done for the same
2 Out of total allocated budget for targeted group development
in last FY, 60-80 percent expenditure done for the same
21.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in first box of "Yes", three (3) points, if
there will be (√) in second box of "Yes", two (2) points and zero for otherwise.
21.4 Sources for verification
Decision register/book of budget allocation, annual district development plan, financial
details, details of work completion as per allocation.
Indicator: 23 Budget for Agriculture and Livestock Development Program
23.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
According to article 189 (1) (KA), district policy on agriculture and livestock must be formulated
and implement activities accordingly.
23.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on program, budget for agriculture and livestock Yes No
1 Policy related to agriculture and livestock development
formulated and implemented
2 Budget allocated from the DDF in agriculture and livestock
related program in last FY
3 At least 80 percent expenditure done out of allocation in last
FY
Note: Projects that fall under sectoral plan, area-wise plan or demanded project during
participatory planning process should be addressed while allocating the budget.
23.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, if
there will be (√) in two boxes including one of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
23.4 Sources for verification
District agriculture and livestock development policy, allocated budget in district
development plan for agriculture and livestock and expenditure against allocation.
Indicator: 25 Management of drinking water and sanitation Sector
25.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Under the article 189 of act, DDC must work in drinking water and sanitation sector. Since it is
insisted by the millennium development goal, DDC must work for the development of this
sector.
39
25.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on drinking water and sanitation sector management Yes No
1 Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) plan prepared
2 Allocated specified budget for drinking water hygiene and
sanitation and additional allocation from other sources and
expenditure done accordingly
3 Under the "Open Defecation Free" campaign, at least 10
percent VDC declared as ODF and continue plan
development to declared municipality and VDC ODF
4 Continuous program implemented in the ODF declared
VDC and municipality for the sustainability of ODF
program5
25.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, if
there will be (√) in any three boxes of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
25.4 Sources for verification
Water Hygiene and Sanitation (WASH) plan in place, annual district development plan
and annual progress review report.
Indicator: 31 Gender responsive budget
31.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
For the attainment of inclusive development in district development plan, DDC must prepare
gender responsive and inclusive district development plan, implement it and gender responsive
budget audit must be done in annual basis following the gender budget audit guideline 2007.
31.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on planning and implementation of gender budget
audit
Yes No
1 Planned for gender responsive and inclusive activities done
2 Activities and budget implemented as per planning
3 Gender responsive budget audit done
31.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, if
there will be (√) in two boxes of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
31.4 Sources for verification
District development plan, annual progress report and gender responsive and inclusive
budget audit report.
Indicator: 34 Impact evaluations of projects and activities
40
34.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Impact study of the project of cost estimate more than 20 million implemented by DDC must be
done two years after the completion of the projects as provisioned in law 206 of regulation.
34.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on impact evaluation of projects Yes No
1 Impact evaluation of the specified project done in specified
time frame
2 Impact on poverty reduction, production, employment,
ecology and environment covered in the impact evaluation
Note: Impact evaluation means, change have been made in livelihood, employment, poverty
reduction, access to services, social, environment, ecology and holistic development due to
project implementation.
34.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, if
there will be (√) in one box of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
34.4 Sources for verification
Impact evaluation report of previous FY of last FY that was completed at the cost more
than Rs. 20 million.
Indicator: 35 Social security/protection Program
35.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Detailed list of individual who are eligible to get social security/protection allowance in all
VDCs and municipalities must be updated in forwarded to Ministry before Magh (Jan-Feb) of
the current FY. Progress on distribution of social security/protection allowance must be
forwarded on trimester and annual basis. The advance taken for social security/protection
allowance must be settled in time as specified by the law
35.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on social protection program Yes No
1 Updated list of individuals who are eligible to get social
security/protection allowance in the current FY prepared at
the end of Magh (Jan-Feb) of last FY and forwarded to
ministry.
2 Detail updated list forwarded on trimester and annual basis
after deleting the names
3 Advance settled as specified by law and in time frame
35.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", three (3) points, if
there will be (√) in two including one boxes of "Yes", two (2) points and zero for otherwise.
41
35.4 Sources for verification
Updated list of individual who are eligible for getting social security/protection
allowance of VDCs and municipalities, advance settlement and distribution details of
social security/protection allowance forwarded to ministry in trimester and annual basis.
B) Municipality Indicators
Indicator: 2 Budget Allocations for the Development of Targeted Groups
2.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Except from the conditional grant of the municipality fund, after deducting the amount that must
be spare for matching fund, as specified in the municipality grant guideline, footing on the
gender equality and social inclusion policy, for promotion of disadvantaged section of the
society, budget must be allocated on following program/ projects that will directly benefit to the
targeted groups :
a) Allocated minimum of 10 percent budget for those program/projects that will directly benefit
to disadvantaged women of all sections
b) Allocate minimum of 10 percent budget for those program/projects that will directly benefit to
disadvantaged children of all sections
c) Allocate minimum of 15 percent budget for those program/projects that will directly benefit to
disadvantaged group (Elderly people, dalit, adibasi/janjati, persons having different capacity,
Madhesi, Muslium and backward group) including the areas and targeted groups as specified by
Government of Nepal issuing notice.
2.2 Table for measurement
SN Total allocation from the capital budget by the municipality
in current FY
Yes No
1 Allocate minimum of 10 percent and approve the budget
from the municipal council on the programs/projects that
directly benefit to women from disadvantaged group
2 Allocate minimum of 10 percent and approve the budget
from the municipal council on the programs/projects that
directly benefit to children from disadvantaged group
3 Allocate minimum of 15 percent budget for those
program/projects that will directly benefit to disadvantaged
group (Elderly people, dalit, adibasi/janjati, persons having
different capacity, Madhesi, Muslium and backward group)
including the areas and targeted groups as specified by
Government of Nepal issuing notice
2.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two points, if there is
(√) in any two box of "Yes" one point, and zero otherwise.
42
2.4 Sources for verification
Annual planning book of the municipality, total capital budget of the municipality, total budget
allocation for the targeted groups in current FY
Indicator: 3 Expenditure on the Targeted Groups Development
3.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
As specified in the municipality grant manual, expenditure must be done for the targeted groups
that were allocated in last FY.
3.2 Table for measurement
SN Expenditure on all the targeted group in last FY Yes No
1 More than 80 percent expenditure done against the
allocation for all three targeted groups
2 60-80 percent expenditure done against the allocation for all
three targeted groups
3.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in first boxes of "Yes", two points, if there
is (√) in second box of "Yes" one point, and zero otherwise.
3.4 Sources for verification
Annual program book of last FY, annual progress report of last FY, record of allocation and
expenditure in last FY
Indicator: 4 Child development and protection
4.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
According to article 96 and different sun article of the Act, child development and protection
activities must be done. Government of Nepal had been signed in different international charter
related to child survival, protection and development and act, policy and laws have been
endorsed. Service delivery and specified work must be done managing the resources
acknowledging the mentioned act, law, policy, working calendar, operational manual, working
structure.
4.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on the Periodic District Development Plan Yes No
1 Budget allocation and expenditure done on child
education/child development center
2 Maintain record of disable, helpless and orphan
3 Work related to abolition of child labor done
4 Use of child friendly local governance system
4.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", 2 point, If there will
be (√) in any three boxes of "Yes", 1 point, and zero otherwise.
43
4.4 Sources for verification
Annual program, budget book, report on the organization development, documents on manual
and working calendar, job description to the staff.
Indicator: 6 Implementation of Social Security/protection Schemes
6.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
According to the social security/protection operational manual 2008, social protection program
must be implemented in the municipality area. Detail list of the beneficiary group on the
distribution of budget provided by the Government of Nepal and report must be forwarded to
concern authority.
6.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on implementation of social security protection
program
Yes No
1 Disseminate the information within the first trimester
through bulletin/book with the list persons who receive
social security/protection allowance as per list of targeted
groups in the last FY
2 Delete the name from the list who died of migrate who were
receiving the allowance
3 Following details of the persons who are eligible to get the
allowance in current FY must be forwarded to DDC before
the end of Poush (Dec-Jan) of last FY
a) Number of elderly people:
Including dalits
Excluding dalits
b) No. of single women
c) No. of partially disable and helpless
d) No. of fully disable and helpless
e) No. of extinct ethnicity people
4 Settlement of advance before 35 days taken from the DDC
against the social protection allowance
6.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", 2 points, if there is
(√) in any three box of "Yes" one point, and zero otherwise.
6.4 Sources for verification
Book of the persons who received allowance, receipt of the distribution, citizen chartered,
bulletin, records of public hearing, reports submitted to DDC
Indicator: 21 Feasibility study
44
21.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
As per the article 113 of the act, feasibility study of projects must be done determining the basis
of selection of the projects. As per the municipality grant manual, the physical infrastructure
projects that have more than 5 million cost estimates, feasibility study of such project must be
done before the approval from the municipal council. Social, financial, environmental including
technical, cost estimates, map, design, specification and sustainability of the project must be
included in the feasibility study report.
21.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on the feasibility study of physical infrastructure
projects
Yes No
1 Feasibility study of all physical infrastructure related
projects of cost estimate more than 5 million prepared before
the approval from the municipal council
2 Feasibility study of minimum of 50 percent of physical
infrastructure projects that have cost estimate more than 5
million
3 Social, financial, environmental including technical, cost
estimates, map, design, specification and sustainability of
the project included in the feasibility study report.
Note: Project cover, that project (s) completed within one year or carryover type of the projects
in regards to this indicator.
21.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in first and third box of "Yes", two (2)
points, if there will be (√) in second and third box of "Yes", one (1) points and zero if in case
there is no project having cost estimate 5 million or for otherwise.
21.4 Sources for verification
Project documents, feasibility study report, annual planning book
Indicator: 33 Sanitation and waste management
33.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
As per sub section (6) and (7) of section (GA) of sub article (1) of the act, under the role,
responsibility and authority of the municipality, it is mentioned to undertake sanitation activities
and collection of waste/garbage, transportation and management. Sanitation and waste
management must be undertaken effectively and efficiently.
33.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on sanitation and water management Yes No
1 Included water management related activities in the annual
program
2 Differentiate the organic and inorganic waste at the source
and implement such activities at least in 25 percent wards of
45
SN Status on sanitation and water management Yes No
the municipality
3 Collect the differentiated waste differently
4 Mobilize private/community sector for waste management
5 Manage the dumping site to dispose the waste
7 Activity undertaken for reuse of the waste
8 Awareness activities undertaken on the waste management
33.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", four (4) points, if
there will be (√) in any six boxes of "Yes", three (3) points, if there will be (√) in any five boxes
of "Yes", two (2) points and zero for otherwise.
33.4 Sources for verification
Annual program and network for waste management, contract with the private/community
organization, data published by the municipality, onsite observation
Indicator: 34 Environment management
34.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Municipality must manage entertainment spot, play ground, museum (Sangrahalaya), zoo, park
despite of environment protection related activities as specified in the section (GA) of sub
section (1) and section (JA) of sub section (2) of article 96 of act. Similarly sub section (1) of
section (YAN) of sub article (1) of article 96 of the same act, plantation must be done in both
side of the roads to promote the greenery and support for environment protection.
As per the environment protection act, 1996 (2053 BS) and same regulation 1997 different
provisions have been done for the management of environment and the environment
management guideline 2004 (2061 BS) have been endorsed. In addition to this, the circulations
done by the ministry on environmental social protection guideline must also be acknowledged.
34.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on environment management Yes No
1 Initial Environment Evaluation (IEE)/ Environmental Impact
Assessment done wherever it is apply
2 Greenery maintained in the municipality area with the tree
plantation (trees must be planted in at least 10 percent of the
total roads area and protect the environment)
3 Formulate and implement the environment protection plan
4 Formulate the mitigation activities to reduce the climate
change impact and implement it.
5 Establish separate environment section/unit, nominate the
focal person and provide job description
6 Establish environment protection special fund and disburse
budget in it.
46
34.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in five boxes including first and second of
"Yes", four (4) points, if there will be (√) in four including first and second box of "Yes", three
(3) points, if there will be (√) in three including second box of "Yes", two (2) points and zero for
otherwise.
34.4 Sources for verification
Annual program and budget, reports of Initial Environment Evaluation (IEE) and Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA), observation of the roads, environment management plan in
infrastructure related projects, job description for the staff, details of the environment protection
especial fund.
Indicator: 35 Vehicle parking management
35.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
In the section (CHA) of sub article (1) of article 96 of the act, role, responsibility and authority of
the municipality and sub section (2) related to construction and transportation, bus park, rixhaw,
tanga , truck parking management in the municipality area have been provisioned. Number of
The vehicle in the municipal area has been increased tremendously. Parking management in the
municipality area must be done.
35.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on vehicle parking management in the municipality
area
Yes No
1 Management of vehicle parking in the municipality area
done
2 Manage water, electricity and toilets in the bus park
3 Bus parking done in the bus park
35.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, if
there will be (√) in any two boxes of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
35.4 Sources for verification
Decision on the management of vehicle parking/ Bus Park, onsite observation in the parking area
Indicator: 36 Regulation of meat shop and management
36.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Sub section 2 and 14 of section (YAN) of by-law (1) of article 96 of act, animal slaughter house
establishment spot and management and sub section (5) and (6) of sub article (1) of article 96 of
the act, sales of consumption goods and harmful substances that have negative effect in the
public health of municipality area must be control or displace.
47
Regulation and management of slaughter house must be done in coordination with concern
livestock service office, consumer right protection forum, meat businessman and animal health
related institutions, since these issues are directly related to public health and meat test act.
36.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on the meat shop regulation and management Yes No
1 Register the meat shop and maintain its record
2 Fixed the minimum criteria on the operation of meat shop
3 Regular monitoring of the meat shop done in close
coordination with District Livestock Service Office,
Federation of Nepalese Chamber of Commerce and
Industry, consumer right protection forum
4 Monitoring report submitted to municipality
5 Decisions done on the monitoring report in municipality
board
36.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, if
there will be (√) in any three boxes of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
36.4 Sources for verification
Decision on the management on the meat shop/slaughter house, monitoring and supervision
report and records of the action taken and observation of the meat shop.
Indicator: 37 Promotion of the public health
37.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
As mentioned in the section (CHA) of bylaw (1) of article 96 of the act, health services of the
municipality have been made. In addition to national program municipality must implement
sanitation and health related activities, control on sales and consumption of substances that will
have negative impact in the public health and control of black market.
37.2 Table for measurement
SN Status of public health promotion activities Yes No
1 In addition to national program, program for the promotion
of public health related activities approved by the municipal
council and implement it
2 Toilet promotion and open defecation free program
conducted at least in 25 percent wards
3 Monitoring of the shops that sale consumer goods in close
coordination with concern government agencies, consumer
right protection forum and federation of chamber of
commerce and industry
4 Discuss on the monitoring report in the regular municipality
board meeting and action undertaken for those who do mal
practice
48
37.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, If
there will be (√) in any two boxes of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
37.4 Sources for verification
Annual program and budget, annual progress report of last FY etc
Indicator: 38 Emergency service and disaster risk management
38.1 Explanation of the indicator and basement of its law/policy
Organization development study must be done or the organizational structure must be updated in
In sub section 7 and 19 of miscellaneous of section (YAN) of sub article (1) of article 96 of the
act, control of disaster and fire breeder operation has been mention. Disaster Risk Management
and emergency activities must be conducted in the municipality area. The Disaster Risk
Management Plan to reduce the losses due to disaster like earthquake, land slide, fold, fire and
epidemics control and management, reduction in the loss and rescue during the disaster and
resettlement activities and emergency service must be conducted in close coordination with
concern stakeholder and community.
38.2 Table for measurement
SN status on the emergency services and disaster management Yes No
1 Areas of disaster, status of the risk, risk reduction measures
and institutional arrangement done and Disaster Risk
Management Plan prepared and approved by the municipal
council
2 Disaster deduction activities implemented based on the
Periodic Disaster Risk Management Plan
3 Operation of fire breeder
4 Establish disaster risk management fund and disburse budget
on it
38.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", four (4) points, if
there will be (√) in any three boxes of "Yes", three (3) points, if there will be (√) in any two
boxes of "Yes", two (2) points and zero for otherwise.
38.4 Sources for verification
Disaster Reduction Management Plan and annual disaster management activities, record of
disaster reduction fund and record of services provided in last FY
40.2 Table for measurement
SN Status on national conduct implementation Yes No
1 Collect application form as per structural design mentioned
in annex: 1 of building regulation 2009 while taking license
of building construction
2 On site supervision and monitoring of the building
49
SN Status on national conduct implementation Yes No
construction done in the municipality area to assure that the
building construction is done as per building conduct 2009
and action taken against any mal practice done.
3 Management of approving the building design as per
national building conduct
4 Approval of the government/ public building assuring that it
is disable friendly
5 Public awareness raising activities and orientation program
undertaken on earthquake proof building in order to reduce
the earthquake risk and preparedness
40.3 Method of providing points: If there will be (√) in all boxes of "Yes", two (2) points, If
there will be (√) in any three boxes of "Yes", one (1) points and zero for otherwise.
40.4 Sources for verification
Approved building construction and building design approval criteria, national building conduct
2009 implementation manual